linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/28] mtd: spinand: Fix kernel doc

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f8981eae-3f1b-48e6-b74c-95810af3e5f0@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:05:28 +0200
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
 Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 Steam Lin <STLin2@...bond.com>, Santhosh Kumar K <s-k6@...com>,
 linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/28] mtd: spinand: Fix kernel doc



On 11/19/25 7:18 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> On 05/11/2025 at 16:57:39 +01, Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/31/25 6:26 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>> The @data buffer is 5 bytes, not 4, it has been extended for the need of
>>> devices with an extra ID bytes.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 34a956739d29 ("mtd: spinand: Add support for 5-byte IDs")
>>
>> no fixes tag for documentation.
>>
>> with that:
>> Reviewed-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
>>
>> (commit msg can be updated to smth like "update kernel doc comment"
>> too)
> 
> I partially disagree. Tell me if I'm wrong, but may I guess that you
> have backports in mind? As opposed to backporting comment fixes which


yes, I was thinking on stable rules, where trivial fixes like this,
are not accepted. But you didn't cc stable, so I think that's fine.

> might not make much sense indeed, _fixing_ a comment makes sense. We
> know that stable maintainers, even though they ask people to Cc stable
> for backports, they automatically pick with the help of AI almost any
> commit with a Fixes tag. I believe it is wrong to not mark such commit
> and even change the title (because "fix" in the title may also lead to
> an automatic backport) to circumvent their tooling. The tooling must
> adapt, not the accuracy of the commits. Plus, backporting this kind of
> commit is harmless, so I wouldn't care too much?

okay