linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the printk tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200903065547.0cc6f53b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 06:55:47 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the printk tree

Hi Petr,

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 09:26:11 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> The problem is that this commit is not in mainline. It is living
> only in printk/linux.git.
> 
> Could we use the SHA1 from the maintainer tree when it would not get rebased?
> 
> Or should we rather avoid Fixes: tag referencing commits that are not
> in mainline?
> 
> I am sorry to bother you with this silly question. I do not see any
> hint in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.

Well, in theory, maintainers trees should not be rebased after they
have been published (except in exceptional circumstances), so using
SHA1s from them should be OK.  Especially if the fixing commit is in
the same maintainers tree (which it should be, right).  It does mean
that maintainers need to be a bit more careful if they do rebase their
trees to update any Fixes tags (or other commit references) that are
affected by the rebase.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped