From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755317Ab3CZUzH (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:55:07 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:59120 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789Ab3CZUzD (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:55:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:54:59 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Greg KH cc: Gerlando Falauto , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Russell King , Ben Dooks , Kukjin Kim , Ralf Baechle , Grant Likely , Linus Walleij , Simon Guinot , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3b 0/9] refactoring for mask_cache In-Reply-To: <20130326204725.GA4521@kroah.com> Message-ID: References: <1363885931-20571-1-git-send-email-gerlando.falauto@keymile.com> <20130321215709.GA27612@kroah.com> <20130326204725.GA4521@kroah.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:37:53PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 06:12:02PM +0100, Gerlando Falauto wrote: > > > > This patchset addresses a regression found with the Orion GPIO controller > > > > when both Edge- and Level- based interrupts are requested within the same > > > > GPIO chip. The regression was introduced by e59347a > > > > "arm: orion: Use generic irq chip" > > > > > > > > thereby affecting all kernel releases since 3.0.x. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the > > > stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt > > > for how to do this properly. > > > > > > > > > > Aside of that it would be less intrusive for the stable series to > > revert the offending commit(s), if that is possible. > > If it is reverted in Linus's tree, yes, I can do that. But if so, > please just tag that revert with the Cc: stable marking and then I can > pick it up properly. > > Otherwise, no, I can't revert something that isn't already fixed in > upstream first. I know. The proper thing would be: patch 1/n revert (cc'ed to stable) patch 2-m/n fix infrastructure patch n/n redo the commit with the proper change Though I don't know if it's possible. Thanks, tglx