Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Fix device links functional breakage in 4.19.99

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:10:43PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:54 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > As mentioned in an earlier email thread [1], 4.19.99 broke the ability
> > to create stateful and stateless device links between the same set of
> > devices when it pulled in a valid bug fix [2]. While the fix was valid,
> > it removes a functionality that was present before the bug fix.
> >
> > This patch series attempts to fix that by pulling in more patches from
> > upstream. I've just done compilation testing so far. But wanted to send
> > out a v1 to see if this patch list was acceptable before I fixed up the
> > commit text format to match what's needed for stable mailing list.
> >
> > Some of the patches are new functionality, but for a first pass, it was
> > easier to pull these in than try and fix the conflicts. If these patches
> > are okay to pull into stable, then all I need to do is fix the commit
> > text.
> 
> I took a closer look at all the patches. Everyone of them is a bug fix
> except Patch 4/6. But Patch 4/6 is a fairly minimal change and I think
> it's easier/cleaner to just pick it up too instead of trying to
> resolve merge conflicts in the stable branch.
> 
> 1/6 - Fixes what appears to be a memory leak bug in upstream.
> 2/6 - Fixes error in initial state of the device link if it's created
> under some circumstances.
> 3/6 - Fixes a ref count bug in upstream. Looks like it can lead to memory leaks?
> 4/6 - Adds a minor feature to kick off a probe attempt of a consumer
> 5/6 - Fixes the break in functionality that happened in 4.19.99
> 6/6 - Fixes bug in 5/6 (upstream bug)
> 
> Greg
> 
> Do these patches look okay for you to pull into 4.19 stable? If so,
> please let me know if you need me to send v2 with commit fix up.
> 
> The only fix up needed is to these patches at this point is changing
> "(cherry picked from commit ...)" with "[ Upstream commit ... ]". The
> SHAs themselves are the correct SHAs from upstream.

These all look good to me, now all queued up, thanks.

greg k-h