On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:08:17PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 26.02.2019 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 05:33:05PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> 26.02.2019 13:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman пишет:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:07:15AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>>> В Mon, 25 Feb 2019 02:27:19 +0000
> >>>> Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxx> пишет:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: dfebb5f43a78827a ("usb: chipidea: Add support for
> >>>>>> Tegra20/30/114/124")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suppose you need to apply at stable tree too, right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It is enough to have the "Fixes" tag to get patch backported into all
> >>>> relevant kernel versions.
> >>>
> >>> No it is not. My scripts do NOT trigger off of the fixes: tag, please
> >>> read:
> >>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
> >>> for how to do this properly.
> >>
> >> Okay, my bad then. Maybe this is something that could warned by checkpatch.. adding Joe and Andy to the thread.
> >
> > Why? It's allowed to put fixes: tags for a patch that does not belong
> > in a stable tree. That happens all the time, and is encouraged. Look
> > at some of the stuff in linux-next now, we have Fixes: for commits that
> > are still in linux-next as well, because we do not rebase our trees.
> > When they all merge into Linus's tree, all is good.
> >
> > So this is not something that checkpatch needs to do anything about.
>
> At least that might help in cases like this if maintainer is also oblivious.
If the maintainer is "oblivious", they are not going to be running
checkpatch :)
Remember, the "Fixes:" tag is a relatively new thing compared to the cc:
stable tag, which has been a documented requirement for over a decade.
Yes, some subsystems do not even do cc: stable, but that is because
those subsystem maintainers do not want to do it, or do not care.
Again, checkpatch is not going to help them.
checkpatch is not a panacea, people still have to use their brains.
greg k-h
