[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151130194222.GH64635@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:42:22 -0800
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: include mtd.h header for struct mtd_info
definition
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 03:05:26PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 27 November 2015 at 23:33, Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >> On 26 November 2015 at 09:05, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
> >> > Fixes: 1976367173a4 ("mtd: spi-nor: embed struct mtd_info within struct spi_nor")
> >
> > I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I recall the -stable folks picking up
> > for-linus commits just based on the 'Fixes:' tags. I feel like that
> > isn't always ideal, though.
>
> I'm confused. Do you mean I shouldn't include it?
No, the 'Fixes' usage is fine. I'm just not clear what importance is
placed on it by others.
> Do you have a reference to more detailed Fixes usage? All I found is
> info in Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> > If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
> > git-bisect, please use the 'Fixes:' tag
> I think 'Fixes' usage is OK in this case.
I don't have any better reference. Perhaps I'm completely mistaken, and
'Fixes' is never taken as the sole source of for-stable annotation.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists