From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 20:54:04 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Dan Carpenter Cc: David Woodhouse , Frans Klaver , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] mtd: maps: sa1100-flash: potential NULL dereference Message-ID: <20160717035404.GA14744@brian-ubuntu> References: <20160715110629.GB9258@mwanda> <20160716003209.GC76613@google.com> <20160716090041.GC32247@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160716090041.GC32247@mwanda> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:00:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > I like the Fixes tag because it was my invention. :) It's a separate > thing from -stable. Ha, nice. Well I have nothing against the tag, and nothing against this patch. It's good to know that the Fixes tag is not (necessarily) a request-for-stable tag. > It's nice for reviewing so you can see the original intent of the patch > you're fixing. Also it forces you to find the original authors and CC > them so hopefully they Ack the patch. The other thing is it lets you > collect data about which patches introduce bugs and how quickly they > get fixed. So for example, lwn.net recently had an article about bug > that are backported into the -stable tree. All good things. I know personally it's helpful when tracking down bugs, or backporting drivers or features. Regards, Brian