On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 03:17:30PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2021, at 6:25 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 08:19:47PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -DEFINE_SPINLOCK(nfsd_notifier_lock);
> >>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(nfsd_notifier_lock);
> >>> static int nfsd_inetaddr_event(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event,
> >>> void *ptr)
> >>> {
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks! This was pushed to the tip of the for-next branch at
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
> >>
> >> I removed the Fixes: line because a backport is unnecessary, and
> >> the commit ID is not yet permanent.
> >
> > Removing the tag, makes it more complicated for backporters. Before
> > they could tell automatically from the Fixes tag that backporting was
> > not necessary.
> >
> > On the other hand, does this patch really need a Fixes tag since it's
> > not a runtime bug? Different maintainers take different sides in that
> > argument.
> >
> > If the patch needed a fixes tag then a lot of maintainers have scripts
> > to update the tag during a rebase. There are also automated tool run on
> > linux-next which emails a warning when the Fixes tags point to an
> > invalid hash.
>
> Hi Dan, the patch fixes a bug in my for-next branch, not in mainline.
> There's really no need for a Fixes: tag.
Assuming it doesn't get folded into the fixed patch before going
upstream, it'd be useful information to have there.
--b.
