Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] mtd: spi-nor: sst: fix BPn bits for the SST25VF064C | Date | Thu, 3 Dec 2020 15:08:49 +0000 |
| |
On 12/3/20 4:39 PM, Michael Walle wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Am 2020-12-03 15:34, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com: >> On 12/3/20 1:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote: >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know >>> the content is safe >>> >>> This flash part actually has 4 block protection bits. >>> >>> Reported-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> >>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.7+ >> >> While the patch is correct according to the datasheet, it was >> not tested, so it's not a candidate for stable. I would update >> the commit message to indicate that the the patch was made >> solely on datasheet info and not tested, I would add the fixes >> tag, and strip cc-ing to stable. > > What is the difference? Any commit with a Fixes tag will also land > in the stable trees. Just that it will cause compile errors for > kernel older than 5.7. > > So if you don't want to have it in stable then you must not add > a Fixes: tag either. >
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't say that the Fixes tag is a guarantee that a patch will hit the stable kernels.
Since this patch was not tested, it's not a candidate for stable as per the first rule. It's a theoretical fix, because it should indeed fix the locking as per the datasheet. Even for theoretical fixes, I would like to know what commit broke the functionality, and that's why I asked for the Fixes tag.
We don't want the patch in stable, so that's why I said that I would indicate in the commit message that it was not tested, and that I would strip the cc to stable.
Maybe it's just my understanding. Others may help.
| |