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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 EC488ECDE47 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 21:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E9B2081C for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 21:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Zkuym8HW" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B2E9B2081C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727953AbeKIGnl (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 01:43:41 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58544 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727561AbeKIGnh (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 01:43:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [208.72.13.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82F8F20825; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 21:06:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1541711180; bh=SRM0AtAGL7uOS8RowmPD3a3b5t9ji0Ndd6C32yYAloQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Zkuym8HWGBQypgeuRMnMTVr4FGbCWCoS2TA9npKbCb5e6n4LWVjBihbmA3QG4tAfg LlQtYaUgaLyevj593FC+WKwMPVsBm61DTN58Xi0EjpOiE4Jx9BYiU8xO2Hk6i5e37j J4l1fc+5H7uujqpmJlGA/T8oIUrCPTdVPa5pSzrA= Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:06:15 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Dan Williams , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , X86 ML , John Stultz , acme@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Andy Lutomirski , Marc Zyngier , Daniel Lezcano , Dave Hansen , Ard Biesheuvel , Will Deacon , Mark Brown Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Documentation/process: Add tip tree handbook Message-ID: <20181108210615.GC22691@kroah.com> References: <20181107171010.421878737@linutronix.de> <20181107171149.165693799@linutronix.de> <20181108074012.GD20032@gmail.com> <20181108091251.GL9761@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181108174006.GP4170@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 08:58:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 8 Nov 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:19:33AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:13 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 08:40:12AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > + - Cc: ``cc-ed-person `` > > > > > > + > > > > > > + If the patch should be backported to stable, then please add a '``Cc: > > > > > > + stable@vger.kernel.org``' tag, but do not Cc stable when sending your > > > > > > + mail. > > > > > > > > > > Can I suggest a more canonical form: > > > > > > > > > > Cc: # v4.18 and later kernels > > > > > > > > > > It would be nice if people adding Cc: stable lines would actually try to > > > > > figure out which exact kernel versions are affected. > > > > > > I know at least StGit mail does not grok that "#"notation. I've > > > stopped using it in favor of a "Fixes:" tag. I would think "Fixes:" is > > > preferred over "# " if only because it can be used to track > > > fixes to commits that have been backported to stable. Is there any > > > reason for "# " to continue in a world where we have "Fixes:"? > > > > I sometimes have fixes that need to be different for different past > > releases. And there have been cases where RCU patches would apply and > > build cleanly against releases for which it was not appropriate, but > > would have some low-probability failure. Which meant that it could be > > expected to pass light testing. :-/ > > > > So I sometimes need a way of saying which versions a given patch applies > > to, independent of the version into which the bug was introduced. > > I can understand that you want to limit the scope of automatic backports. > > But we really should try to always use of the Fixes: tag. In most cases the > SHA1 of the commit in the fixes tag defines the backport scope. > > For the rare cases where the buggy commit is really old, but you want to > limit the backport scope for a reason then I really like to avoid to > overload the Cc stable tag and have a dedicated tag instead. Something > like: > > Fixes: 1234567890AB ("subsys/comp: Short summary") > Backport-to: 4.14 Ick, no. Just stick to the "Fixes:" tag. My scripts can now track when a patch is backported to a stable tree so that I know to apply it to older ones despite the original patch showing up in a newer release. And yes, those scripts are new, as Sasha is about to point out all of the places where I missed this in the past :) thanks, greg k-h