[SRU][jammy:linux-xilinx-zynqmp][PATCH v2 0/1] Add breaks on flash-kernel older than 3.104ubuntu20

[Andrei Gherzan]

On 24/03/22 09:00AM, Portia Stephens wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:39 PM Portia Stephens
> <portia.stephens at canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 7:43 PM Andrei Gherzan
> > <andrei.gherzan at canonical.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24/03/19 04:31PM, Portia Stephens wrote:
> > > > [ Impact ]
> > > >
> > > > * flash-kernel uses the model string in the kernel's device tree to determine
> > > > what platform is running. Thus there is a dependency between the two packages
> > > > * A change in the model string for KR platforms was made to support rev B
> > > > (LP #2046280) which breaks older versions of flash-kernel.
> > > >
> > > > [ Test Plan ]
> > > >
> > > > * Kernel regression testing uses flash-kernel and will test this change
> > > > * certification testing uses flash-kernel and will test this change
> > > >
> > > > [ Where problems could occur ]
> > > >
> > > > * This will cause flash-kernel to be updated automatically when the kernel is
> > > > upgraded. This may introduce other issues caused by previous flash-kernel changes
> > > > if the user was not upgrading flash-kernel.
> > > >
> > > > [ Other info ]
> > > >
> > > > * flash-kernel Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2054556
> > > > * Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2058321
> > > >
> > > > Portia Stephens (1):
> > > >   UBUNTU: [Packaging] Add breaks on flash-kernel older than
> > > >     3.104ubuntu20
> > > >
> > > >  debian.zynqmp/control.d/flavour-control.stub | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > You NACKed the first submission without a comment and ommitted a v2
> > > reason in the follow-up, too (as in a v2 change mentioned in the v2
> > > cover). It would help review a changelog of versions in covers and/or
> > > comments in NACKs.
> >
> > There is no difference between v1 and v2. I use git publish and my
> > mail server crapped out between sending the first email and the second
> > of the original patch set. I wasn't sure if the second email from the
> > original patch set  would ever actually come through so i nack'd the
> > original to try and avoid confusion, although it clearly failed .
> >
> 
> Should I submit a patch v3 with a changelog?

That is clear to me. I will let the maintainers decide if this requires
a v++.

Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
Andrei Gherzan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20240325/88495d32/attachment.sig>