On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 1:05 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > >> Just a general comment: usually, if review of the original series is > >> still going on, it makes a lot more sense to raise such things in the > >> original series so the author can fixup while things are still in > >> mm-unstable. Once the series is in mm-stable, it's a different story. In > >> that case, it is usually good to have the mail subjects be something > >> like "[PATCH mm-stable 1/1] ...". > > > > Ok... For my education, do you mean the title of this patch should > > somehow reflect that it should be folded into the original patch? Just > > trying to understand the actionable item here. How would you change > > this patch when posting for mm-unstable and for mm-stable? > > For patches that fixup something in mm-stable (stable commit ID but not > yet master -> we cannot squash anymore so we need separate commits), > it's good to include "mm-stable". The main difference to patches that > target master is that by indicating "mm-stable", everyone knows that > this is not broken in some upstream/production kernel. > > > For patches that fixup something that is in mm-unstable (no stable > commit ID -> still under review and fixup easily possible), IMHO we > distinguish between two cases: > > (1) You fixup your own patches: simply send the fixup as reply to the > original patch. Andrew will pick it up and squash it before including it > in mm-stable. Sometimes a complete resend of a series makes sense instead. > > (2) You fixup patches from someone else: simply raise it as a review > comment in reply to the original patch. It might make sense to send a > patch, but usually you just raise the issue to the patch author as a > review comment and the author will address that. Again, Andrew will pick > it up and squash it before moving it to mm-stable. > > > That way, it's clearer when stumbling over patches on the mailing list > if they fix a real issue in upstream, fix a issue in > soon-to-be-upstream, or are simply part of a WIP series that is still > under review. Thanks for the detailed explanation, David. I'll post fixups to mm-unstable patches by replying to the original ones from now on. Interestingly enough, I have another fix today (internal syzcaller found a potential deadlock) which might be interesting enough to be in a separate patch. So, I'll post it as a separate patch and we can discuss whether it should be squashed or kept apart. Thanks, Suren. > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb >
