Hi Dan-
> On Jan 28, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:05:06PM +0000, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> Hi Colin-
>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The call to find_stateid_by_type is setting the return value in *stid
>>> yet the NULL check of the return is checking stid instead of *stid.
>>> Fix this by adding in the missing pointer * operator.
>>>
>>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Dereference before null check")
>>> Fixes: 6cdaa72d4dde ("nfsd: find_cpntf_state cleanup")
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Thanks for your patch. I've committed it to the for-next branch at
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
>>
>> in preparation for the v5.12 merge window, with the following changes:
>>
>> - ^statid^stateid
>> - Fixes: tag removed, since no stable backport is necessary
>>
>> The commit you are fixing has not been merged upstream yet.
>
> Fixes tags don't meant the patch has to be backported. Is your tree
> rebased? In that case, the fixes tag probably doesn't make sense
> because the tag can change. You might want to just consider folding
> Colin's fix into the original commit.
Yes, this branch can be rebased on occasion. Since you and Bruce
suggest squashing the fix into the original patch, I will do that.
> Fixes tags are used for a lot of different things:
> 1) If there is a fixes tag, then you can tell it does *NOT* have to
> be back ported because the original commit is not in the stable
> tree. It saves time for the stable maintainers.
> 2) Metrics to figure out how quickly we are fixing bugs.
> 3) Sometimes the Fixes tag helps because we want to review the original
> patch to see what the intent was.
>
> All sorts of stuff. Etc.
Yep, I'm a fan of all that. I just want to avoid poking the stable
automation bear when it's unnecessary.
--
Chuck Lever
