On 12 Sep 2024, at 14:17, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> On Sep 12, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 12 Sep 2024, at 10:01, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> >>> For the NFSD and exportfs hunks: >>> >>> Acked-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>> >>> >>> "lockd: introduce safe async lock op" is in v6.10. Does this >>> series need to be backported to v6.10.y ? Should the series >>> have "Fixes: 2dd10de8e6bc ("lockd: introduce safe async lock >>> op")" ? >> >> Thanks Chuck! Probably yes, if we want notifications fixed up there. It >> should be sufficient to add this to the signoff area for at least the first >> three (and fourth for cleanup): >> >> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.10.x > > 2dd10de8e6bc landed in v6.7. > > I suppose that since v6.10.y is likely to be closed by > the time this series is applied upstream, this tag might > be confusing. > > Thus Fixes: 2dd10de8e6bc and a plain Cc: stable should > work best. Then whichever stable kernel is open when your > fixes are merged upstream will automatically get fixed. So you want "Fixes: 2dd10de8e6bc" on all these patches? Fixing the problem requires all of the first three patches together. My worry is that a "Fixes" on each implies a complete fix within that patch, so its really not appropriate. The stable-kernel-rules.rst documentation says for a series, the Cc: stable tag should be suffient to request dependencies within the series, so that's why I suggested it for the version you requested. What exactly would you like to see? I am happy to send a 2nd version. Ben
