Re: [PATCH 5.5 00/65] 5.5.11-rc1 review

[Sasha Levin]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 08:15:40AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 3/19/20 7:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 07:44:33AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 3/19/20 6:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.5.11 release.
> > > > There are 65 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Responses should be made by Sat, 21 Mar 2020 12:37:04 +0000.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >
> > > arm:davinci_all_defconfig fails to build.
> > >
> > > include/linux/gpio/driver.h: In function 'gpiochip_populate_parent_fwspec_twocell':
> > > include/linux/gpio/driver.h:552:1: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
> > >   552 | }
> > >
> > > The problem is caused by commit 8db6a5905e98 ("gpiolib: Add support for the
> > > irqdomain which doesn't use irq_fwspec as arg") which is missing its fix,
> > > commit 9c6722d85e922 ("gpio: Fix the no return statement warning"). That one
> > > is missing a Fixes: tag, providing a good example why such tags are desirable.
> >
> > Thanks for letting me know, I've now dropped that patch (others
> > complained about it for other reasons) and will push out a -rc2 with
> > that fix.
>
> I did wonder why the offending patch was included, but then I figured that
> I lost the "we apply too many patches to stable releases" battle, and I didn't
> want to re-litigate it.

I usually much rather take prerequisite patches rather than do
backports, which is why that patch was selected.

--
Thanks,
Sasha