Re: [PATCH 5.10 125/135] drm/i915: avoid uninitialised var in eb_parse()
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Wed Aug 11 2021 - 09:06:59 EST
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2021-08-11 09:46:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:28:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > From: Jonathan Gray <jsg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The backport of c9d9fdbc108af8915d3f497bbdf3898bf8f321b8 to 5.10 in
> > > > 6976f3cf34a1a8b791c048bbaa411ebfe48666b1 removed more than it should
> > > > have leading to 'batch' being used uninitialised. The 5.13 backport and
> > > > the mainline commit did not remove the portion this patch adds back.
> > >
> > > This patch has no upstream equivalent, right?
> > >
> > > Which is okay -- it explains it in plain english, but it shows that
> > > scripts should not simply search for anything that looks like SHA and
> > > treat it as upsteam commit it.
> > Sounds like you have a broken script if you do it that way.
> That is what you told me to do!
Yes, which is fine for matching sha1 values.
> I would happily adapt my script, but there's no
> good/documented/working way to determine upstream commit given -stable
> If we could agree on
> Commit: (SHA)
> in the beggining of body, that would be great.
> Upstream: (SHA)
> in sign-off area would be even better.
What exactly are you trying to do when you find a sha1? For some reason
my scripts work just fine with a semi-free-form way that we currently
have been doing this for the past 17+ years. What are you attempting to
do that requires such a fixed format?