On 26/01/2021 09.50, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 08:59:54PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On 25/01/2021 20.40, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On 25/01/2021 19.39, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
From: Rasmus Villemoes rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk
commit 87fe04367d842c4d97a77303242d4dd4ac351e46 upstream.
Greg, please drop this from 4.19-stable. Details:
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c @@ -357,6 +357,10 @@ int mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(struct mv88 if (err) return err;
err = mv88e6185_g1_stu_data_read(chip, entry);if (err)return err;The function that this patch applied to in mainline did not exist in v4.19. It seems that this hunk has been applied in the similar mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(), and indeed, in current 4.19.y, just one more line of context shows this:
Bah, that was from 4.14, so the line numbers are a bit off, but I see you've also added it to the 4.14 queue. Same comment for that one: Drop this from both 4.19.y and 4.14.y.
Odd, but ok, the Fixes: line lied :)
Sorry, but no, it did not.
The commit 92307069a96c mentioned in Fixes changed the semantics of the helper mv88e6185_g1_vtu_data_read(), splitting half its functionality to a new helper mv88e6185_g1_stu_data_read(), and it also added a call of that new helper in mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext().
But the other user of mv88e6185_g1_vtu_data_read(), namely mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext(), was not updated, which is precisely what 87fe04367d842c4d97a77303242d4dd4ac351e46 fixes. However, that other user of mv88e6185_g1_vtu_data_read() did not exist in 4.19, so the backports of 92307069a96c to those earlier stable trees didn't introduce that bug.
Rasmus