Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:03:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > structure pl111_display_funcs can be made static as it does not need to be
>> > in global scope. Fixes sparse warning:
>> >
>> > "warning: symbol 'pl111_display_funcs' was not declared. Should it
>> > be static?"
>> >
>> > Fixes: bed41005e6174d ("drm/pl111: Initial drm/kms driver for pl111")
>>
>> The patch looks good and I appreciate what you're doing, but I question
>> the usefulness of adding Fixes: tags for trivial stuff like this. I'd
>> prefer Fixes: was reserved for actual fixes that should be backported to
>> any kernels that have the commit being fixed.
>>
>> The same applies to many other patches you've sent recently.
>>
>
> The Fixes tag is so so useful for everything. It should be included
> in every bugfix. (I am the inventor of the Fixes tag).
>
> I told Colin to include the Fixes tag on everything. My review process
> is partly "How was this bug introduced? How can we prevent it from
> happening again? Who was the original author and have they reviewed the
> proposed fix?" So I end up looking up the original commit anyway. It
> helps me a lot to have the Fixes tag there.
>
> The Fixes tag is obviously useful for the stable people as well, but
> that wasn't really the point.
OK, that's definitely not how I've read the
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst description of the Fixes
tag, which talks about bugs found with git bisect and things that should
go to -stable. I would not have considered what this patch is changing
to be a bug.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
