Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ALSA: pcm: Call substream ack() method upon compat mmap" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 09:38:52AM +0100, Alan Young wrote:
This commit is not applicable before the 64-bit time_t in user space with 32-bit compatibility changes introduces by 80fe7430c7085951d1246d83f638cc17e6c0be36 in 5.6.
That is odd, as that is not what you wrote in the patch itself:
Fixes: 9027c4639ef1 ("ALSA: pcm: Call ack() whenever appl_ptr is updated")
So is the Fixes: tag here incorrect?
thanks,
greg k-h
On 30/07/2021 10:26, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 09:38:52AM +0100, Alan Young wrote:
This commit is not applicable before the 64-bit time_t in user space with 32-bit compatibility changes introduces by 80fe7430c7085951d1246d83f638cc17e6c0be36 in 5.6.
That is odd, as that is not what you wrote in the patch itself:
Fixes: 9027c4639ef1 ("ALSA: pcm: Call ack() whenever appl_ptr is updated")So is the Fixes: tag here incorrect?
thanks,
greg k-h
I did not add the Fixes tag. I guess Takashi Iwai did.
I think that 9027c4639ef1 added some functionality that was broken by 80fe7430c7085951 and which my patch corrects. So the Fixes: 9027c4639ef1 tag refers to the actual functionality, not the breaking of it.
I have no idea if that is the correct usage of the Fixes tag which, as I said, I did not add.
Alan.
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:15:14 +0200, Alan Young wrote:
On 30/07/2021 10:26, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 09:38:52AM +0100, Alan Young wrote:
This commit is not applicable before the 64-bit time_t in user space with 32-bit compatibility changes introduces by 80fe7430c7085951d1246d83f638cc17e6c0be36 in 5.6.
That is odd, as that is not what you wrote in the patch itself:
Fixes: 9027c4639ef1 ("ALSA: pcm: Call ack() whenever appl_ptr is updated")So is the Fixes: tag here incorrect?
thanks,
greg k-h
I did not add the Fixes tag. I guess Takashi Iwai did.
I think that 9027c4639ef1 added some functionality that was broken by 80fe7430c7085951 and which my patch corrects. So the Fixes: 9027c4639ef1 tag refers to the actual functionality, not the breaking of it.
I have no idea if that is the correct usage of the Fixes tag which, as I said, I did not add.
Yeah, sorry for the mess, I was confused that the function already missed that point. But the patch can't be applied in anyway, so it can't go wrong at least :)
Takashi
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Alan Young -
Greg KH -
Takashi Iwai