[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF6AEGtYS1LYowjf-OiN-C1+4JFTWwOOpP__4iDLo-dFy0t0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 07:58:14 -0700
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Haowen Bai <baihaowen@...zu.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the drm tree
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 10:16 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In commit
>
> 8caad14e7224 ("drm/msm/dpu: Fix pointer dereferenced before checking")
>
> Fixes tag
>
> Fixes: d7d0e73f7de33 ("drm/msm/dpu: introduce the dpu_encoder_phys_* for
>
> has these problem(s):
>
> - Subject has leading but no trailing parentheses
> - Subject has leading but no trailing quotes
>
> Fixes tags should not be truncated or split across more than 1 line. So:
>
> Fixes: d7d0e73f7de3 ("drm/msm/dpu: introduce the dpu_encoder_phys_* for writeback")
Hmm, checkpatch seems to not catch this (unless it was a recent
addition that landed after what msm-fixes is based on.
will the truncated subject confuse the scripts that look for patches
to backport to stable, ie. do we *really* have to rewrite history to
fix this?
BR,
-R
Powered by blists - more mailing lists