Hi Jeff, On 2026-02-24T13:34:57-0800, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On 2/24/2026 1:27 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > On 2026-02-24T10:45:02-0800, Jeff Johnson wrote: > >> On 2/23/2026 7:17 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > >>> Alejandro Colomar writes: > >>> > >>>> This only worked by chance, because all callers of this macro used the > >>>> same identifiers that were expected by the macro. > >>>> > >>>> $ grep -rn ath_for_each_chanctx > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:1576: ath_for_each_chanctx(sc, ctx) > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c:2554: ath_for_each_chanctx(sc, ctx) { > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/channel.c:165: ath_for_each_chanctx(sc, ctx) { > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/channel.c:291: ath_for_each_chanctx(sc, ctx) { > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/channel.c:861: ath_for_each_chanctx(sc, ctx) { > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/debug.c:717: ath_for_each_chanctx(sc, ctx) { > >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h:446:#define ath_for_each_chanctx(_sc, _ctx) \ > >>>> > >>>> Fixes: c4dc0d040e35 (2014-06-19; "ath9k: Fetch appropriate operating channel context") > >> > >> I'm dropping the Fixes tag since the existing code actually works and hence > >> there is no need to backport to LTS kernels. > > > > Sounds reasonable. Alternatively, a line next to it saying > > > > [Do not backport] > > > > would work, I guess. > > > > Greg, I've seen this situation already a few times. A Fixes tag getting > > removed to avoid triggering a stable backport. But I think keeping the > > Fixes tag could be useful. Should we have a standard way to document > > that a patch fixes an old commit without meaning that it should be > > backported? Maybe something like this?: > > > > [Do not backport to stable] > > Fixes: ... > > > > In any case, feel free to remove it. > > Looks like we have this: > There furthermore is a variant of the stable tag you can use to make the > stable team’s backporting tools (e.g AUTOSEL or scripts that look for commits > containing a ‘Fixes:’ tag) ignore a change: > Cc: # reason goes here, and must be present > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html#option-1 > > Do you want to re-spin with that? Would you mind amending to include the following tag?: Cc: # the code worked by chance I don't know where I keep the patch, so I'd have to apply it from the email to resend. Could you amend it yourself? Have a lovely night! Alex > > /jeff --