linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: pci: fix typo in Bar struct's comment

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: <DFFV41VPS2MU.3LHXU4UKITD0U@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2026 15:08:17 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Miguel Ojeda" <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: "Marko Turk" <mt@...koturk.info>, "Dirk Behme" <dirk.behme@...il.com>,
 <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,
 <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: pci: fix typo in Bar struct's comment

(Cc: Greg, Sasha)

On Sun Jan 4, 2026 at 1:45 PM CET, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2026 at 10:16 PM Marko Turk <mt@...koturk.info> wrote:
>>
>> The typo was introduced in the original commit where pci::Bar was added:
>> Fixes: bf9651f84b4e ("rust: pci: implement I/O mappable `pci::Bar`")
>>
>> Should I use that for the Fixes: tag?
>
> I would add both, since it was added in both and thus different set of
> stable releases may need to fix it differently (i.e. before and after
> the move).

In general I prefer to only add a Fixes: tag for the commit that introduced the
issue.

> In this case, from a quick look, one is for the current release, so it
> doesn't need backport, and the other would need a custom one (since
> this commit wouldn't apply) if someone wants to do Option 3.

I could be wrong, but I think in trivial cases (such as code moves) the stable
team does derive custom commits themselves.

@Greg, Sasha: Is this something you prefer to do or is it something you just do
because it's easier / quicker than to get back and ask for a custom commit?

Again, I could also remember this wrongly, but I think I just recently reviewed
such a commit from Sasha. :)

>> Should I do that in the same commit?

That seems reasonable in this case, please do so.