On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:08:49PM +0000, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 12/3/20 4:39 PM, Michael Walle wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > Am 2020-12-03 15:34, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: > >> On 12/3/20 1:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote: > >>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know > >>> the content is safe > >>> > >>> This flash part actually has 4 block protection bits. > >>> > >>> Reported-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v5.7+ > >> > >> While the patch is correct according to the datasheet, it was > >> not tested, so it's not a candidate for stable. I would update > >> the commit message to indicate that the the patch was made > >> solely on datasheet info and not tested, I would add the fixes > >> tag, and strip cc-ing to stable. > > > > What is the difference? Any commit with a Fixes tag will also land > > in the stable trees. Just that it will cause compile errors for > > kernel older than 5.7. > > > > So if you don't want to have it in stable then you must not add > > a Fixes: tag either. > > > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't say that the > Fixes tag is a guarantee that a patch will hit the stable kernels. > > Since this patch was not tested, it's not a candidate for stable as > per the first rule. It's a theoretical fix, because it should indeed > fix the locking as per the datasheet. Even for theoretical fixes, I > would like to know what commit broke the functionality, and that's why > I asked for the Fixes tag. > > We don't want the patch in stable, so that's why I said that I would > indicate in the commit message that it was not tested, and that I > would strip the cc to stable. > > Maybe it's just my understanding. Others may help. Your understanding is correct. But note that we might accidentally pick it up with the Fixes: tag at a later date, so be aware that you might want to make the text in the changelog really obvious that it should not go into a stable kernel, and why not (hint, if you have a Fixes: tag, that's usually a good reason _to_ include it...) thanks, greg k-h
