linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: process: Describe kernel version prefix for third option

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]

Message-ID: <Y2H5Hs7UQJw8T2IX@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 05:59:10 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: process: Describe kernel version prefix
 for third option

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:44AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 11/1/22 20:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > No, sorry, this is not needed and does not have to be in the subject
> > line at all.
> > 
> > The current wording is fine, it's just that people don't always read it.
> > 
> > so consider this a NAK.
> > 
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> There was a case when a submitter submitted multiple backports (which
> qualified for third option) without specifying the prefix, hence a
> reviewer complained [1].
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221101074351.GA8310@amd/

Yes, and as I said on that thread, to you directly:
	https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y2Ef0hK4rTmAoEUs@kroah.com/
the submission was done correctly, no one should have complained, and
the patches were applied by me to the correct branches without any
problems at all.

This is not an issue, this change is not needed at all.

greg k-h