Message ID | CACRpkdZWqTOTzYYgD-wAps2Ygsh-D+nxaW76hrWSdTDZZKBA_w@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] pin control changes for v6.13 | expand |
Hi Linus, I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR: On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 05:23:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >- The second issue is more sneaky: a recent fixup patch to one > of the rc:s (I think -rc4) fixed some error path bugs in > the AW9523 driver, then a patch to the regular devel is > improving the use of devres so the fixed errorpath fixes > things broken. > >I have been applying the following fixup patch for -next to work: And realized that that proposed fixup: >diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c >index ebd590a3cec6..90059b0d20e5 100644 >--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c >+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c >@@ -983,11 +983,8 @@ static int aw9523_probe(struct i2c_client *client) > lockdep_set_subclass(&awi->i2c_lock, >i2c_adapter_depth(client->adapter)); > > pdesc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdesc), GFP_KERNEL); >- if (!pdesc) { >- ret = -ENOMEM; >- goto err_disable_vregs; >- } >- >+ if (!pdesc) >+ return -ENOMEM; > ret = aw9523_hw_init(awi); > if (ret) > return ret; > >This can be folded in as an "evil merge" or applied separately on >top, your pick. Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR: > pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm concerned that this will just create confusion later on...
On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 5:55 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote: > I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR: (...) > Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR: > > > pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy > > Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending > commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm > concerned that this will just create confusion later on... I don't follow what you mean I should do. The offending commit is a fix and it is already upstream since -rc4. Torvalds could probably fix the issue by simply reverting 393c554093c0c4cbc8e2f178d36df169016384da instead of applying the fixup though, it has the same textual and semantic effect. I just tested it and it works fine. ^Torvalds: looks like revert on top is a better idea than fixups so we don't upset the stable maintainer scripts. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 09:48:59AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 5:55 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote: > >> I've just hit the issue you've described in this PR: >(...) >> Is effectively a revert of one of the commits that are part of this PR: >> >> > pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy >> >> Would it make more sense to just re-do this PR without the offending >> commit? I understand that this is a fairly small fixup, but I'm >> concerned that this will just create confusion later on... > >I don't follow what you mean I should do. The offending commit is a >fix and it is already upstream since -rc4. Oh, there's something off in the PR itself: it lists "pinctrl: aw9523: add missing mutex_destroy" as a commit that is included in this PR, but really it's already upstream. Sorry, I got confused by that. >Torvalds could probably fix the issue by simply reverting >393c554093c0c4cbc8e2f178d36df169016384da >instead of applying the fixup though, it has the same textual and >semantic effect. I just tested it and it works fine. > >^Torvalds: looks like revert on top is a better idea than fixups >so we don't upset the stable maintainer scripts. Yes, a revert would be nicer as it'll make sure we can easily get it to older stable trees.
The pull request you sent on Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:23:26 +0100:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git tags/pinctrl-v6.13-1
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/2d32fba02e0e5b67fb3a4ea51dde80c0db83f1c1
Thank you!
The pull request you sent on Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:23:26 +0100:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git tags/pinctrl-v6.13-1
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/2d32fba02e0e5b67fb3a4ea51dde80c0db83f1c1
Thank you!
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c index ebd590a3cec6..90059b0d20e5 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-aw9523.c @@ -983,11 +983,8 @@ static int aw9523_probe(struct i2c_client *client) lockdep_set_subclass(&awi->i2c_lock, i2c_adapter_depth(client->adapter)); pdesc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdesc), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!pdesc) { - ret = -ENOMEM; - goto err_disable_vregs; - } - + if (!pdesc) + return -ENOMEM; ret = aw9523_hw_init(awi); if (ret)