linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the kvm 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:02:01 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the kvm tree



On 16.04.21 16:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:02:01 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/04/21 14:38, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> On 16.04.21 14:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> In commit
>>>>
>>>>     c3171e94cc1c ("KVM: s390: VSIE: fix MVPG handling for prefixing and >> MSO")
>>>>
>>>> Fixes tag
>>>>
>>>>     Fixes: bdf7509bbefa ("s390/kvm: VSIE: correctly handle MVPG when in >> VSIE")
>>>>
>>>> has these problem(s):
>>>>
>>>>     - Subject does not match target commit subject
>>>>       Just use
>>>>      git log -1 --format='Fixes: %h ("%s")'
>>>
>>> Hmm, this has been sitting in kvms390/next for some time now. Is this a > new check?
>>>    
>>
>> Maybe you just missed it when it was reported for kvms390?
>>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-next/msg59652.html
> 
> It was a different commit SHA then and was reported because the Fixes
> SHA did not exist.  It was fixed the next day, so I guess either I
> missed reporting this different problem, or I thought at least it had
> been fixed to use the correct SHA.  I am not completely consistent,
> sometimes :-)

Yeah, seems that my fix was only half-way correct then but it managed to get past your review.