On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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/ Yes, which is fine for matching sha1 values. > 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. What exactly are you trying to do when you find a sha1? For some reason my scripts work just fine with a semi-free-form way that we currently have been doing this for the past 17+ years. What are you attempting to do that requires such a fixed format? thanks, greg k-h
