Re: handling Fixes tags on rebased trees

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:39:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It turns that rebasing without updating the Fixes tag is sort of common.
> I wrote a script to find the invalid tags from the last month and have
> include the output below.  Two of the patches are in -mm and presumably
> Andrew is going fold the Fixes commit into the original commit when
> these are sent upstream so those aren't a real issue.
> 
> We could probably try catching rebased trees when they are merged in
> linux-next?  I'll play with this and see if it works.  But we're going
> to end up missing some.  Maybe we need a file with a mapping of rebased
> hashes which has something like:
> 
> 28252e08649f 0df68ce4c26a ("iscv: Prepare ptdump for vm layout dynamic addresses")
> 42ae341756da d338ae6ff2d8 ("userfaultfd: add minor fault registration mode")

I thought Stephen's scripts already catch the "this commit isn't in the
tree" issue?  I use them when I take patches, so that logic came from
somewhere :)

thanks,

greg k-h