Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 072/185] ALSA: hda: Add codec on bus address table lately

[Sasha Levin]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:40:45PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:30:25 +0200,
> Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 09:06:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:47:30 +0200,
> > >Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> [ Upstream commit ee5f85d9290fe25d460bd320b7fe073075d72d33 ]
> > >>
> > >> The call of snd_hdac_bus_add_device() is needed only for registering
> > >> the codec onto the bus caddr_tbl[] that is referred essentially only
> > >> in the unsol event handler.  That is, the reason of this call and the
> > >> release by the counter-part function snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() is
> > >> just to assure that the unsol event gets notified to the codec.
> > >>
> > >> But the current implementation of the unsol notification wouldn't work
> > >> properly when the codec is still in a premature init state.  So this
> > >> patch tries to work around it by delaying the caddr_tbl[] registration
> > >> at the point of snd_hdac_device_register().
> > >>
> > >> Also, the order of snd_hdac_bus_remove_device() and device_del() calls
> > >> are shuffled to make sure that the unsol event is masked before
> > >> deleting the device.
> > >>
> > >> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204565
> > >> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >The upstream commit was reverted later by 246bb4aaa4f4, which has even
> > >Fixes tag pointing this.  So please drop this.
> >
> > I'll drop it, thank you.
> >
> > >BTW, this is the second time AUTOSEL overlooked the existing revert.
> > >I'm afraid something is missing in the check.
> >
> > Usually it's the case that I check for fixes/reverts once I compile the
> > series, and again right before I queue it up to a stable tree. In
> > between fixes and reverts tend to sneak in just like in this case.
> >
> > In general, I also check the -rcs for fixes and reverts during their
> > review window, so while sometimes we send out mails with patches that
> > have a fix or revert upstream, they rarely make it into a released
> > stable kernel.
>
> IMO, it'd be great if you have some check before sending for reviews.
> The Fixes tag chain can be parsed relatively easily, after all.

True. I'll update my scripts to do that.

--
Thanks,
Sasha