From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFB5C48BDF for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8776A61412 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:41:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231262AbhFOJoA (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:44:00 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57870 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231238AbhFOJoA (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 05:44:00 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D6D061209; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:41:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1623750116; bh=1wCtGWkPwZYMZRCrMSWmhYOo8bpfpG5fhKivDsxr82Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Fb+N/DjqV9HoU8TednOHKh0AkSgHITcIK2ybjN33caA8RZj7IsUXQGxwwMWDyqLaj RckWOLnRkGGM18p2kt7ftLdtt6P+/EVyauzh6/UfpFiPC/z1itEYBmJBwQqwLz+7PJ 11gbIwa7i0i2bN0+SPasE+TmY9UwE39slBfMiw9A= Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 11:41:53 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Matthew Bobrowski Cc: Jan Kara , Amir Goldstein , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: fix copy_event_to_user() fid error clean up Message-ID: References: <1ef8ae9100101eb1a91763c516c2e9a3a3b112bd.1623376346.git.repnop@google.com> <20210614102842.GA29751@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:28:42PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Fri 11-06-21 10:04:06, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 6:32 AM Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > > Trick question. > > > There are two LTS kernels where those fixes are relevant 5.4.y and 5.10.y > > > (Patch would be picked up for latest stable anyway) > > > The first Fixes: suggests that the patch should be applied to 5.10+ > > > and the second Fixes: suggests that the patch should be applied to 5.4+ > > > > > > In theory, you could have split this to two patches, one auto applied to 5.4+ > > > and the other auto applied to +5.10. > > > > > > In practice, this patch would not auto apply to 5.4.y cleanly even if you > > > split it and also, it's arguably not that critical to worth the effort, > > > so I would keep the first Fixes: tag and drop the second to avoid the > > > noise of the stable bots trying to apply the patch. > > > > Actually I'd rather keep both Fixes tags. I agree this patch likely won't > > apply for older kernels but it still leaves the information which code is > > being fixed which is still valid and useful. E.g. we have an > > inftrastructure within SUSE that informs us about fixes that could be > > applicable to our released kernels (based on Fixes tags) and we then > > evaluate whether those fixes make sense for us and backport them. > > > > > > Should we also be CC'ing so this gets backported? > > > > > > > > > > Yes and no. > > > Actually CC-ing the stable list is not needed, so don't do it. > > > Cc: tag in the commit message is somewhat redundant to Fixes: tag > > > these days, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit about intentions. > > > Specifying: > > > Cc: # v5.10+ > > > > > > Could help as a hint in case the Fixes: tags is for an old commit, but > > > you know that the patch would not apply before 5.10 and you think it > > > is not worth the trouble (as in this case). > > > > I agree that CC to stable is more or less made redundant by the Fixes tag > > these days. No, it is NOT. We have to pick up the "Fixes:" stuff because of maintainers and developers that forget to use Cc: stable like has been documented. But we don't always do it as quickly as a cc: stable line will offer. And sometimes we don't get to those at all. So if you know it needs to go to a stable kernel, ALWAYS put a cc: stable as the documentation says to do so. This isn't a new requirement, it's been this way for 17 years now! thanks, greg k-h