WTF: patch "[PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 5.8-stable tree?

PATCH [email protected] 2 participants 2 messages Aug 17, 2020

Subsystems (3)

Stable branch PA-RISC architecture Atomic infrastructure

lore

Share & tools

lore

[email protected]

author maintainer

2020-08-17 12:41 UTC #0 lore raw

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.8-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 3bc6e3dc5a54d5842938c6f1ed78dd1add379af7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Helge Deller <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 10:50:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] parisc: Whitespace cleanups in atomic.h

Fix whitespace indenting and drop trailing backslashes.

Cc <[email protected]> # 4.19+

Signed-off-by Helge Deller <[email protected]>

arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h +4 -4

index 6dd4171c9530..90e8267fc509 100644
@@ -34,13 +34,13 @@ extern arch_spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE] __lock_aligned;
 /* Can't use raw_spin_lock_irq because of #include problems, so
  * this is the substitute */
 #define _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(l,f) do {	\
-	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
+	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);	\
 	local_irq_save(f);			\
 	arch_spin_lock(s);			\
 } while(0)
 
 #define _atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(l,f) do {	\
-	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);			\
+	arch_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
 	arch_spin_unlock(s);				\
 	local_irq_restore(f);				\
 } while(0)

@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static __inline__ void atomic_##op(int i, atomic_t *v)			\
 	_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(v, flags);				\
 	v->counter c_op i;						\
 	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);			\
-}									\
+}
 
 #define ATOMIC_OP_RETURN(op, c_op)					\
 static __inline__ int atomic_##op##_return(int i, atomic_t *v)		\

@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static __inline__ void atomic64_##op(s64 i, atomic64_t *v)		\
 	_atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(v, flags);				\
 	v->counter c_op i;						\
 	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);			\
-}									\
+}
 
 #define ATOMIC64_OP_RETURN(op, c_op)					\
 static __inline__ s64 atomic64_##op##_return(s64 i, atomic64_t *v)	\

Helge Deller

maintainer

2020-08-17 19:16 UTC #1 lore raw

Hi Greg,

Quoted 9 lines · On 17.08.20 14:41, [email protected] wrote:

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.8-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

I tagged it for stable series, because often when successing patches come in, I sometimes need to trigger a backport of such small prior cleanup patches. But your are right, for now it's ok to drop it.

Thank you!
Helge

Quoted 55 lines