On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:23:47PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 15-06-21 11:41:53, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:28:42PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Fri 11-06-21 10:04:06, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 6:32 AM Matthew Bobrowski <repnop@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Trick question. > > > > > There are two LTS kernels where those fixes are relevant 5.4.y and 5.10.y > > > > > (Patch would be picked up for latest stable anyway) > > > > > The first Fixes: suggests that the patch should be applied to 5.10+ > > > > > and the second Fixes: suggests that the patch should be applied to 5.4+ > > > > > > > > > > In theory, you could have split this to two patches, one auto applied to 5.4+ > > > > > and the other auto applied to +5.10. > > > > > > > > > > In practice, this patch would not auto apply to 5.4.y cleanly even if you > > > > > split it and also, it's arguably not that critical to worth the effort, > > > > > so I would keep the first Fixes: tag and drop the second to avoid the > > > > > noise of the stable bots trying to apply the patch. > > > > > > > > Actually I'd rather keep both Fixes tags. I agree this patch likely won't > > > > apply for older kernels but it still leaves the information which code is > > > > being fixed which is still valid and useful. E.g. we have an > > > > inftrastructure within SUSE that informs us about fixes that could be > > > > applicable to our released kernels (based on Fixes tags) and we then > > > > evaluate whether those fixes make sense for us and backport them. > > > > > > > > > > Should we also be CC'ing <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> so this gets backported? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes and no. > > > > > Actually CC-ing the stable list is not needed, so don't do it. > > > > > Cc: tag in the commit message is somewhat redundant to Fixes: tag > > > > > these days, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit about intentions. > > > > > Specifying: > > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.10+ > > > > > > > > > > Could help as a hint in case the Fixes: tags is for an old commit, but > > > > > you know that the patch would not apply before 5.10 and you think it > > > > > is not worth the trouble (as in this case). > > > > > > > > I agree that CC to stable is more or less made redundant by the Fixes tag > > > > these days. > > > > No, it is NOT. > > > > We have to pick up the "Fixes:" stuff because of maintainers and > > developers that forget to use Cc: stable like has been documented. > > > > But we don't always do it as quickly as a cc: stable line will offer. > > And sometimes we don't get to those at all. > > > > So if you know it needs to go to a stable kernel, ALWAYS put a cc: > > stable as the documentation says to do so. This isn't a new > > requirement, it's been this way for 17 years now! > > OK, as I said I do add cc: stable when I think the patch should go to > stable. But practically patches with the Fixes tag get to stable so > reliably that I was suspecting you actually have a bot processing Linus' > tree and forwarding all patches with Fixes tag to stable as well :) If > that's not the case, I'm sorry for misguiding Matthew. We have scripts for this, but they usually run after all of the cc: stable patches have been processed, so there is a delay, if they run at all. Again, the rules have not changed for 17 years, please add a cc: stable on the signed-off-by area if you want to be sure to get your patches merged to a stable tree. Any patch not doing that is not guaranteed to have it merged there and are at the whim of Sasha and mine scripts... thanks, greg k-h
