On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 11:40 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > "James" == James Bottomley < > > > > > > James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > James> We should mark the commit causing the problems, which went > into > James> 4.4 if I remember correctly: > > James> Fixes: ca369d51b3e1649be4a72addd6d6a168cfb3f537 Cc: > James> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.4+ Reviewed-by: James E.J. > Bottomley > James> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I'll add the tags. The reason I didn't explicitly put 4.4+ is that > the original commit has made its way quite far in various stable > trees by now. It has? It wasn't tagged for stable. However, if it got applied to stable trees, then we should certainly backport further. I sort of hope the stable process uses the Fixes: tag to decide when to backport anyway, since the stable commit contains the original upstream sha256, they can certainly identify it. Greg, are we OK not to bother with qualifying the cc: stable tag if we have a Fixes tag, or do you still want to see both? Perhaps an addition to stable_kernel_rules.txt mentioning Fixes: might be useful as well. Thanks, James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
