From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D687C1E52A for ; Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720973500; cv=none; b=jTM04Hw9EW0vCbxOxjhDu+PMIyO4y/5L+wSpyR85sltqxKmIEOkETX7fuYLIyP/5CDurdefML++/8gNpcOeOq12+iiitfzw565I4DtZAglGYcxm7fvsymb4LO5wmzWQPN+qG/j5J5zgxP1ahkOjEo9aGVeoxZjWLEKqt67y9twY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720973500; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jtv6Zn9k7GcZDmV/Df6aQeAcT/SOT0McRcf+ooDbFMo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GgY4sogMPm95ZoY7UWd8s7DTcTnwScvNJx1eUOL180WQmCY8RBt4eCRRrUCkwgWlboFCC6Ce5X3mH5qox3Yd9zCv+SnkB7Wo9Ma1Z8DqVbvsNu8WntC4k5FWYUj3sqvc9ihlgS9QyeHO0+Rvsw1j1+rFrbD2kWV1cl/iCGvWJ1Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=ZrdubWkG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="ZrdubWkG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=vUBRK4fNvHQsx8Rxtnk0VYoTx+N2w9yP9USdu8mW3v4=; b=ZrdubWkGG6IyBa3ttxENPTsQmO U3lE7MIwTWo02uMdKqzFonqVztV1AmxjN2ZWlpj8Z0nb0rwEtJaxhHRfp6smkXC24vPyfjYo5I5PZ zvwsfJUxFf0LphF1amRSnjjsOCRJekB+QA/O4yavIQwurslTnerMEZhe3h1gEEz7+atQ=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sT1GI-002VhQ-Gp; Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:35:42 +0200 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:35:42 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: James Bottomley Cc: Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Greg KH Subject: Re: Proposal: Enhancing Commit Tagging for Stable Kernel Branches Message-ID: <61bb6e19-4eff-416b-a3d6-932f4a313f69@lunn.ch> References: <915ef4884d0cd347a1e0c87584346c764f7a11cf.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <915ef4884d0cd347a1e0c87584346c764f7a11cf.camel@HansenPartnership.com> > One of the big reasons patches get Fixes without cc:stable is simply > that it's an -rc fix for a merge window regression (so no released > kernel has it in and therefore no stable kernel needs it), so you'd > also need to explain that case in the improve docs (because it's a > genuine fix, just not a stable candidate). There is also the case where a patch which needs fixing has been queued into a -next tree by the Maintainer. So it is not even in an -rc yet, it is waiting or the next merge window to open. So what we seem to be talking about is a Fixes: tag pointing to a patch in a released kernel, which does not have a stable: tag. Why not simply get 0-day to enforce such patches must have a not-stable: tag? Such emails should quickly train developers to do the right thing. Or is this not a binary condition. Is there a legitimate third option? Andrew