On Wed 2021-08-11 09:46:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:28:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > From: Jonathan Gray <jsg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The backport of c9d9fdbc108af8915d3f497bbdf3898bf8f321b8 to 5.10 in > > > 6976f3cf34a1a8b791c048bbaa411ebfe48666b1 removed more than it should > > > have leading to 'batch' being used uninitialised. The 5.13 backport and > > > the mainline commit did not remove the portion this patch adds back. > > > > This patch has no upstream equivalent, right? > > > > Which is okay -- it explains it in plain english, but it shows that > > scripts should not simply search for anything that looks like SHA and > > treat it as upsteam commit it. > > Sounds like you have a broken script if you do it that way. That is what you told me to do! https://lore.kernel.org/stable/YQEvUay+1Rzp04SO@xxxxxxxxx/ I would happily adapt my script, but there's no good/documented/working way to determine upstream commit given -stable commit. If we could agree on Commit: (SHA) in the beggining of body, that would be great. Upstream: (SHA) in sign-off area would be even better. Best regards, Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
