From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:16:12 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [PATCH v2] irqchip/bcm2836: Prevent spurious interrupts In-Reply-To: <8737jcs8mc.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> References: <20161027182038.11312-1-eric@anholt.net> <87bmy4qxnb.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <8737jcs8mc.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, Eric Anholt wrote: > Thomas Gleixner writes: > > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > >> Thomas Gleixner writes: > >> > This is missing a fixes tag. I have no idea when that problem was > >> > introduced, so I have no way to decide whether this needs to be tagged > >> > stable or not. > >> > >> This code has been there since introduction of the driver, so: > >> > >> Fixes: 1a15aaa998dc ("irqchip: Add bcm2836 interrupt controller for Raspberry Pi 2") > > > > So it want's a stable tag, right? > > I'm not the author here, and I was just trying to provide an assist with > upstreaming, so I'm not going to get too involved. I'd say this is an > edge case for being a stable tree candidate (it's produces a scary dmesg > warning but no other functional problems that I know of), and I didn't > add a fixes tag myself because of that. A fixes tag is not the same as a stable tag, I really want to see Fixes tags on patches which are bug fixes as it makes it simple to see the context in which a bug was introduced. vs. the stable tag: scary warnings tend to confuse users and cause people to send bug reports. So in this case I'd add one. Thanks, tglx