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=-10.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 0ABF9C433E7 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EDE20709 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:48:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725984AbgICJsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2020 05:48:41 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60320 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726047AbgICJsl (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2020 05:48:41 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C720BAB9F; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:48:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 11:48:37 +0200 From: Petr Mladek To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , John Ogness , Sergey Senozhatsky , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the printk tree Message-ID: <20200903091436.GA5012@alley> References: <20200902072254.3054db47@canb.auug.org.au> <20200902072610.GA9496@alley> <20200903065547.0cc6f53b@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200903065547.0cc6f53b@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2020-09-03 06:55:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Petr, > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:26:11 +0200 Petr Mladek wrote: > > > > The problem is that this commit is not in mainline. It is living > > only in printk/linux.git. > > > > Could we use the SHA1 from the maintainer tree when it would not get rebased? > > > > Or should we rather avoid Fixes: tag referencing commits that are not > > in mainline? > > > > I am sorry to bother you with this silly question. I do not see any > > hint in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. > > Well, in theory, maintainers trees should not be rebased after they > have been published (except in exceptional circumstances), so using > SHA1s from them should be OK. Especially if the fixing commit is in > the same maintainers tree (which it should be, right). It does mean > that maintainers need to be a bit more careful if they do rebase their > trees to update any Fixes tags (or other commit references) that are > affected by the rebase. Thanks a lot for info. I have rebased the last 5 commits in the printk-rework branch and added the missing SHAs there. Best Regards, Petr