On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:34 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2022-12-09 at 12:28 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The fs_context_parse_param hook already has a description, which seems the > > > right one according to the code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 3 --- > > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > > > I just merged this into lsm/next with a 'Fixes' tag pointing at the > > previous comment block commit, thanks Roberto. > > Thanks Paul. Didn't include it, as I thought it is part of the stable > kernel process. I guess it is always fine to include it, and to not CC > the stable kernel mailing list, when the patch does not meet the > criteria. To be clear, the 'Fixes' tag here was for the previous comment fix patch which only exists in the lsm/next branch and not any released kernel, adding a stable/CC to this patch wouldn't have done anything except throw up a number of automatically generated merge conflicts as the stable folks tried to merge just this patch. The 'Fixes' tag is simply a bit of administrative housekeeping to connect this patch back to the original, problematic patch; it will largely go unnoticed unless someone decides to cherry pick patches. When in doubt it's okay to add a Fixes tag, but leave off the stable/CC. In fact I prefer if people leave off the stable/CC as I've found it to often be misused IMO; I'd rather add it when merging the patch into one of the stable branches. -- paul-moore.com
