On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 23:31, Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > > > Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I20faa90126937bbee77d9d44709556c3dd4b40be > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Fixes: e5f4728767d2 ("kasan: test: add globals left-out-of-bounds test") > > > > > > This Fixes tag is unneeded. > > > > > > Except the above nit, this patch looks good to me. Thanks. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > And yes, the Fixes tag should be removed to not have stable teams do > > unnecessary work. > > I thought that Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx controlled whether the patch > is to be taken to the stable kernel and Fixes: was more of an > informational tag. At least that's what this seems to say: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight These days patches that just have a Fixes tag (and no Cc: stable) will be auto-picked in many (most?) cases (by empirical observation). I think there were also tree-specific variances of this policy, but am not sure anymore. What is the latest policy? > > +Cc'ing missing mailing lists (use get_maintainers.pl - in particular, > > LKML is missing, which should always be Cc'd for archival purposes so > > that things like b4 can work properly). > > get_maintainers.pl tends to list a lot of reviewers so I try to filter > it to only the most important recipients or only use it for > "important" patches (like the uaccess logging patch). It's also a bit > broken in my workflow -- > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210913233435.24585-1-pcc@xxxxxxxxxx/ > fixes one of the problems but there are others. That's fair. It just seemed that something went wrong given kasan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wasn't Cc'd. FWIW, syzbot uses 'get_maintainer.pl --git-min-percent=20' which is a bit less aggressive with Cc'ing folks not mentioned explicitly in MAINTAINERS. > Doesn't b4 scan all the mailing lists? So I'd have imagined it > wouldn't matter which one you send it to. Those under lore.kernel.org or lists.linux.dev. Seems linux-mm does get redirected to lore: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ -- It's not entirely obvious which are lore managed and which aren't (obviously things like kasan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx aren't).
