Re: Clang patches for 4.9

[Nick Desaulniers]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:35 AM Nathan Chancellor
<natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:47:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:13:01PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > Hi Greg and Sasha,
> > > >
> > > > Attached are three mbox files containing patches that bring the Clang
> > > > backports that Nick did in 4.9.139 up to date with what is currently in
> > > > 4.14 and mainline, as well as fix warnings that are present in the arm64
> > > > and x86_64 defconfigs here and in AOSP (cuttlefish_defconfig). All of
> > > > these warnings are fixed in 4.14 so there will be no regressions from
> > > > upgrading.
> > >
> > > Really?  I see a number of these only showing up in much newer kernels.
>
> Sigh that's what I get for not double checking my email after adding
> patches :(
>
> > > Specifically these patches:
> > >   1f60652dd586 ("pinctrl: max77620: Use define directive for max77620_pinconf_param values")
> > >   a0dd6773038f ("phy: tegra: remove redundant self assignment of 'map'")
> > >   a9903f04e0a4 ("sched/sysctl: Fix attributes of some extern declarations")
> > >
> > > from the "arm" mbox you provided.  Why shouldn't the above patches go
> > > into 4.14.y and in some cases, also 4.19.y and 4.20.y?
>
> They should. All three pick cleanly to 4.14.y. Only the first one needs
> to be taken into 4.19.y and 4.20.y.

I feel like I need a script that given a sha, tells me what LTS
branches the patch is in or not.  I have this to tell me "when (what's
the first tag that contains this commit)" a patch first landed:

function first_tag () {
  tag=$1
  git describe --contains "$tag" | sed 's/~.*//'
}

So say a patch landed in 4.15-rc1; and I want to backport to 4.9 and
4.14 (but it's already been backported to 4.14).  Does anyone have a
script to check this quickly?  The process for seeing which LTS
contains a commit or not still is very manual.  I guess backports that
require modification probably complicate the search further.  Just
asking, in case this is already a solved problem.

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers