Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: check for missing Fixes tags

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:30:27AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This check looks for common words that probably indicate a patch
> is a fix.  For now the regex is:
> 
> 	(BUG: KASAN|Call Trace:|syzkaller|stable\@)
> 
> Why are stable patches encouraged to have a fixes tag?  Some people mark
> their stable patches as "# 5.10" etc.  This is not as useful as a Fixes
> tag.  The Fixes tag helps in review.  It helps people to not cherry-pick
> buggy patches without also cherry-picking the fix.
> 
> Also if a bug affects the 5.7 kernel some people will round it up to
> 5.10+ because 5.7 is not supported on kernel.org.  It's possible the Bad
> Binder bug was caused by this sort of gap where companies outside of
> kernel.org are supporting different kernels from kernel.org?
> 
> Should it be counted as a Fix when a patch just silences harmless
> WARN_ON() stack trace.  Yes.  Definitely.
> 
> Is silencing compiler warnings a fix?  It seems unfair to the original
> authors, but we use -Werror now, and warnings break the build so let's
> just add Fixes tags for those.  I tell people that silencing static
> checker warnings is not a fix but the rules on this vary by subsystem.
> 
> Is fixing a minor LTP issue (Linux Test Project) a fix?  Probably?  It's
> hard to know what to do if the LTP test has technically always been
> broken.
> 
> One clear false positive from this check is when a patch updated the
> debug output and the commit message included before and after Call
> Traces.  Sometimes you should just ignore checkpatch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Nice!

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>