On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 08:59:02AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 8 May 2018 at 21:06, Kim Phillips <kim.phill...@arm.com> wrote: > > This patch is provided in the context of allowing the Coresight driver > > subsystem to be loaded as modules. Coresight uses amba_bus in its call > > to bus_find_device() in of_coresight_get_endpoint_device() when > > searching for a configurable endpoint device. This patch allows > > Coresight to reference amba_bustype when built as a module. > > Sounds like you are fixing a bug, don't your want this to go for > stable and then also add a fixes tag?
What bug is this fixing exactly that would qualify it for stable backporting? The lack of an export is never a bug unless there is some existing user which requires it. This is not the case here. What Kim is doing in his new patch series is making Coresight - which is currently only available as either disabled or built-in - possible to be loaded as a module. This is a new feature, and in the process of creating this new feature, Kim needs a symbol that wasn't previously needed to be exported. I think it would be hard to argue that Coresight not being available as a module is a bug worthy of backporting to older kernels. Therefore, it is not a bug, and it certainly does not qualify for backporting to stable trees: - It must be obviously correct and tested. Probably. - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. Is. - It must fix only one thing. Does. - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a problem..." type thing). Nope. - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical. Nope, not in any stable tree. - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue. As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it exists and additional information on the user-visible impact. Hasn't been. - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted. Is not that. - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the race can be exploited is also provided. Is not that. - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc). Doesn't (so okay.) - It must follow the :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` rules. Does. - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream). Eventually. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up