Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
        Linux kernel regressions list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: One-off regression fix for 6.3 [was: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath9k:
 Don't mark channelmap stack variable read-only in
 ath9k_mci_update_wlan_channels()]
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20230413214118.153781-1-toke@toke.dk> <87zg72s1jz.fsf@toke.dk>
 <CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 00:38:19 +0200
Message-ID: <87ttxarxgk.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:09=E2=80=AFPM Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen =
<toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>>
>> So, with a bit of prodding from Thorsten, I'm writing this to ask you if
>> you'd be willing to pull this patch directly from the mailing list as a
>> one-off? It's a fairly small patch, and since it's a (partial) revert
>> the risk of it being the cause of new regressions should be fairly
>> small.
>
> Sure. I'm always open to direct fixes when there is no controversy
> about the fix. No problem. I still happily deal with individual
> patches.

Awesome, thanks!

> And yes, I do consider "regression in an earlier release" to be a
> regression that needs fixing.
>
> There's obviously a time limit: if that "regression in an earlier
> release" was a year or more ago, and just took forever for people to
> notice, and it had semantic changes that now mean that fixing the
> regression could cause a _new_ regression, then that can cause me to
> go "Oh, now the new semantics are what we have to live with".
>
> But something like this, where the regression was in the previous
> release and it's just a clear fix with no semantic subtlety, I
> consider to be just a regular regression that should be expedited -
> partly to make it into stable, and partly to avoid having to put the
> fix into _another_ stable kernel..

OK, duly noted; thank you for clarifying :)

-Toke