Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mtd tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:02:10AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Jan,
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >> >>   1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> > 
> >> > I haven't seen this commit, I was not Cc'ed.
> >> 
> >> Me neither. :-/
> > 
> > I'm sorry for that but I took the maintainers entry for BLOCK2MTD which is:
> > 
> > BLOCK2MTD DRIVER
> > M:      Joern Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > L:      linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > S:      Maintained
> > F:      drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> > 
> > And both Joern and linux-mtd were CCed on the patch. If different people
> > should be CCed these days, please update the entry. Thanks!
> 
> Ah, you did a manual lookup?
> Because get_maintainer.pl seems to do the right thing:
> 
> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl drivers/mtd/devices/block2mtd.c
> Joern Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> (maintainer:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY DEVICES (MTD))
> linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:BLOCK2MTD DRIVER)
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)
>  
> >> >> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> >> >> 
> >> >>   ff6abbe85634 ("mtd: block2mtd: Add a valid holder to blkdev_put()")
> >> > 
> >> > I will drop this commit from mtd/next. Please take it through the
> >> > vfs-brauner tree as well to avoid conflicts or otherwise, Richard, can
> >> > you send an update at -rc1?
> >> 
> >> A side effect of 1bcded92d938 ("mtd: block2mtd: Convert to
> >> bdev_open_by_dev/path()")
> >> is that it fixes the problem too. That's a good thing.
> >> 
> >> I'm a bit puzzled how to fix the problem for 6.5.y and 6.6.y stable releases.
> >> Back porting 1bcded92d938 seems risky to me since the commit is large.
> >> On the other hand, ff6abbe85634 will not make it into Linus' tree and therefore
> >> is not suitable for stable either.
> > 
> > Yes, that's one of the cases where stable rules make life harder for actual
> > fixes... You can try pushing ff6abbe85634 to stable even if it is not
> > upstream since it fixes a real bug and taking the upstream solution is
> > indeed IMO too intrusive. Sometimes stable maintainers accept such fixes.
> 
> Yep, let's try this route. :-)

Is there anything for me to do? IOW, do I need to grab that patch or
not? :)