Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> writes:
> Le 27/09/2018 à 13:09, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> writes:
>>> Le 26/09/2018 à 13:11, Daniel Thompson a écrit :
>>>> On 16/09/2018 20:06, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:35:44PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>> On a powerpc 8xx, 'btc' fails as follows:
>>>>>> Entering kdb (current=0x(ptrval), pid 282) due to Keyboard Entry
>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx>
>>>>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.15+
>>>>>
>>>>> Would a Fixes: be better here?
>>>>> Fixes: ad67b74d2469d9b82 ("printk: hash addresses printed with %p")
>>>>
>>>> Christophe, When you add the Fixes: could you also add my
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Ok, thanks for the review, but do I have to do anything really ?
>>>
>>> The Fixes: and now your Reviewed-by: appear automatically in patchwork
>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=65715),
>>> so I believe they'll be automatically included when Jason or someone
>>> else takes the patch, no ?
>>
>> patchwork won't add the Fixes tag from the reply, it needs to be in the
>> original mail.
>>
>> See:
>> https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/issues/151
>>
>
> Ok, so it accounts it and adds a '1' in the F column in the patches
> list, but won't take it into account.
Yes. The logic that populates the columns is separate from the logic
that scrapes the tags, which is a bug :)
> Then I'll send a v2 with revised commit text.
Thanks.
cheers
