Re: does 548b8b5168c9 qualify for stable?

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 04:37:25PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 23/10/2020 16.22, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:40:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Please consider whether
> >>
> >> commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8
> >> Author: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
> >> Date:   Thu Sep 17 08:56:11 2020 +0200
> >>
> >>     scripts/setlocalversion: make git describe output more reliable
> >>
> >> qualifies for -stable. 
> > 
> > Looks like it qualifies, how far back do you want it to go?
> > 
> 
> Cool, thanks. I think we have a project using 4.9.y, certainly we have
> projects based on 4.19 and 5.4 - so might as well make it all of the
> ones listed on kernel.org currently.
> 
> > And yes, backported patches always make it much easier to apply :)
> 
> OK. How do you prefer to get those? Individual patch emails with [PATCH
> X.Y-stable] in subject?

That works.

> Or should I put them in a git repo you can cherry-pick them from?

git repos don't work, email does :)

> Should I include the "Commit 548b8b5168c90c42e88f70fcf041b4ce0b8e7aa8
> upstream" line?

Yes please.

> How about notes on how it differs from the upstream commit (e.g. when
> just the context uses `` instead of $() or similar)?

That is also nice to have, if possible, whatever you feel like doing
here.

thanks,

greg k-h