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.
I guess it wouldn't hurt at all to add a "green" warning if there is a "Fixes" tag and no "stable", something like this:
WARNING: There is a "Fixes" tag and no "Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>", please add the stable tag if patch is intended to be backported to stable kernels.
