Re: [PATCH] IB/cma: Fix reversed test

[Doug Ledford]

On 1/28/2017 1:59 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:05:52PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>> Do you think this patch needs "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags?
>>
>> It does not.
> 
> We always should have fixes tags.
> 
> When I'm reviewing, I try to look up the patch which introduced the bug
> so I can figure out what the intent was.  Having a Fixes tag speeds up
> my work.
> 
> Looking at how the bug was introduced sometimes helps to prevent bugs
> from recurring in the future.  For example, I've seen several bugs
> introduced because the right people weren't on the CC to review it.  For
> this particular bug it feels like probably this bug could have been
> detected with more testing.  I doubt it would have made it into a
> released kernel.
> 
> Also it let's you CC the original authors and hopefully they can Ack it.

OK, in my mind, there is a specific reason for Fixes: tags, and it
relates to the automated means by which other maintainers pull patches
for long term stable trees.  Because both the buggy patch and this fix
are being queued in the same general kernel release, there is no need
for this patch to get automatically pulled for any of the long term
stable kernels.  Hence my statement that it doesn't need a fixes tag.  I
don't disagree with your reasons for wanting one, but even if you added
the fixes tag, the Cc: stable is definitely not needed.


-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
    GPG Key ID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature