On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 02:10:03PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:16:21AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I recently wrote a script which identifies patches potentially missing
>in downstream kernel branches. The idea is to identify patches backported/
>applied to a downstream branch for which patches tagged with Fixes: are
>available in the upstream kernel, but those fixes are missing from the
>downstream branch. The script workflow is something like:
>
>- Identify locally applied patches in downstream branch
>- For each patch, identify the matching upstream SHA
>- Search the upstream kernel for Fixes: tags with this SHA
>- If one or more patches with matching Fixes: tags are found, check
> if the patch was applied to the downstream branch.
>- If the patch was not applied to the downstream branch, report
>
>Running this script on chromeos-4.19 identified, not surprisingly, a number
>of such patches. However, and more surprisingly, it also identified several
>patches applied to v4.19.y for which fixes are available in the upstream
>kernel, but those fixes have not been applied to v4.19.y. Some of those
>are on the cosmetic side, but several seem to be relevant. I didn't
>cross-check all of them, but the ones I tried did apply to linux-4.19.y.
>The complete list is attached below.
>
>Question: Do Sasha's automated scripts identify such patches ? If not,
>would it make sense to do it ? Or is there some reason why the patches
>have not been applied to v4.19.y ?
Hey Guenter,
I have a very similar script with a slight difference: I don't try to
find just "Fixes:" tags, but rather just any reference from one patch to
another. This tends to catch cases where once patch states it's "a
similar fix to ..." and such.
The tricky part is that it's causing a whole bunch of false positives,
which takes a while to weed through - and that's where the issue is
right now.
I didn't see any false positives, at least not yet. Would it possibly
I was referring to things that say that they "fixes:", but the fix it
not stable material (typos, fallthrough, etc).
make sense to start with looking at Fixes: ? After all, additional
references (wich higher chance for false positives) can always be
searched for later.
Yes, let me send a branch out for review later today and we could
compare our results.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
