Hi,
Please consider whether
commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8 Author: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Date: Thu Sep 17 08:56:11 2020 +0200
scripts/setlocalversion: make git describe output more reliable
qualifies for -stable. It removes one potential source of binary non-reproducibility that we have actually seen cause problems.
I'm fine with it not qualifying, but please let me know if so, because then I'll go and add some workarounds to various customer projects.
In case it doesn't cherry-pick cleanly (I think there might have been some shell-portability patches replacing $() by `` or something like that) I am happy to provide backports to the still maintained -stable branches.
Thanks, Rasmus
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:40:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Hi,
Please consider whether
commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8 Author: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Date: Thu Sep 17 08:56:11 2020 +0200
scripts/setlocalversion: make git describe output more reliablequalifies for -stable. It removes one potential source of binary non-reproducibility that we have actually seen cause problems.
I'm fine with it not qualifying, but please let me know if so, because then I'll go and add some workarounds to various customer projects.
In case it doesn't cherry-pick cleanly (I think there might have been some shell-portability patches replacing $() by `` or something like that) I am happy to provide backports to the still maintained -stable branches.
Looks like it qualifies, how far back do you want it to go?
And yes, backported patches always make it much easier to apply :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On 23/10/2020 16.22, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:40:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Hi,
Please consider whether
commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8 Author: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Date: Thu Sep 17 08:56:11 2020 +0200
scripts/setlocalversion: make git describe output more reliablequalifies for -stable.
Looks like it qualifies, how far back do you want it to go?
Cool, thanks. I think we have a project using 4.9.y, certainly we have projects based on 4.19 and 5.4 - so might as well make it all of the ones listed on kernel.org currently.
And yes, backported patches always make it much easier to apply :)
OK. How do you prefer to get those? Individual patch emails with [PATCH X.Y-stable] in subject? Or should I put them in a git repo you can cherry-pick them from? Should I include the "Commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8 upstream" line? How about notes on how it differs from the upstream commit (e.g. when just the context uses `` instead of $() or similar)?
Rasmus
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 04:37:25PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On 23/10/2020 16.22, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:40:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Hi,
Please consider whether
commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8 Author: Rasmus Villemoes linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk Date: Thu Sep 17 08:56:11 2020 +0200
scripts/setlocalversion: make git describe output more reliablequalifies for -stable.
Looks like it qualifies, how far back do you want it to go?
Cool, thanks. I think we have a project using 4.9.y, certainly we have projects based on 4.19 and 5.4 - so might as well make it all of the ones listed on kernel.org currently.
And yes, backported patches always make it much easier to apply :)
OK. How do you prefer to get those? Individual patch emails with [PATCH X.Y-stable] in subject?
That works.
Or should I put them in a git repo you can cherry-pick them from?
git repos don't work, email does :)
Should I include the "Commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8 upstream" line?
Yes please.
How about notes on how it differs from the upstream commit (e.g. when just the context uses `` instead of $() or similar)?
That is also nice to have, if possible, whatever you feel like doing here.
thanks,
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
Rasmus Villemoes