[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJO7xTZ6GKsvY3X4@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 11:49:57 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: handling Fixes tags on rebased trees
On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:39:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It turns that rebasing without updating the Fixes tag is sort of common.
> I wrote a script to find the invalid tags from the last month and have
> include the output below. Two of the patches are in -mm and presumably
> Andrew is going fold the Fixes commit into the original commit when
> these are sent upstream so those aren't a real issue.
>
> We could probably try catching rebased trees when they are merged in
> linux-next? I'll play with this and see if it works. But we're going
> to end up missing some. Maybe we need a file with a mapping of rebased
> hashes which has something like:
>
> 28252e08649f 0df68ce4c26a ("iscv: Prepare ptdump for vm layout dynamic addresses")
> 42ae341756da d338ae6ff2d8 ("userfaultfd: add minor fault registration mode")
I thought Stephen's scripts already catch the "this commit isn't in the
tree" issue? I use them when I take patches, so that logic came from
somewhere :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists