[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <080f9306-8c72-c7bd-010a-f0ed32c4b692@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 08:51:20 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, knsathya@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
sdeep@...are.com, seanjc@...gle.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 01/30] x86/mm: Fix warning on build with
X86_MEM_ENCRYPT=y
On 2/28/22 08:40, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> maintainer-tip.rst seems disagree with you:
>>
>> A Fixes tag should be added even for changes which do not need to be
>> backported to stable kernels, i.e. when addressing a recently introduced
>> issue which only affects tip or the current head of mainline.
>>
>> I will leave it as is.
> How does that disagree with me?
>
> The "Fixes" tag is for bug fixes. If it's not possible to trigger the
> warning and there's no user impact, it's not a bug.
Does having Fixes: *break* anything?
If not, I think I'd generally rather have the metadata with more
information as opposed to less information.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists