Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner tree

From: Miquel Raynal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 13:45:50 +0100

Hi Richard,

[email-masked] wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:30:40 +0100 (CET):

> Christian,
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Christian Brauner" <[email-masked]>  
> >> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> >> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> >> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> >> >> is not suitable for stable either.  
> >> > 
> >> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> >> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> >> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> >> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.  
> >> 
> >> Yep, let's try this route. :-)  
> > 
> > Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
> > not? :)  
> 
> No, just keep Jan's patch. (-:
> 
> Miquel, we could also keep ff6abbe85634 in the mtd tree and explain Linus the
> conflict, what do you think? That would help with back porting to stable.

It's not relevant if the patch in Brauner's tree is already fixing this
up. Just send the smaller patch to [email-masked] asking them to
backport this patch instead of the other one, they are used to this
kind of constraint, no?

Miquèl