Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: stable-kernel-rules: provide example of specifying target series

[Paul Barker]

On 06/06/2024 07:43, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> Provide a concrete example of how to specify what stable series should
> be targeted for change inclusion. Looking around on the stable mailing
> list this seems like a common practice already, so let's mention that in
> the documentation as well (but worded so it is not interpreted as the
> only way to do so).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index edf90bbe30f4..daa542988095 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -57,10 +57,13 @@ options for cases where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older
>  series (for example due to API changes).
>  
>  When using option 2 or 3 you can ask for your change to be included in specific
> -stable series. When doing so, ensure the fix or an equivalent is applicable,
> -submitted, or already present in all newer stable trees still supported. This is
> -meant to prevent regressions that users might later encounter on updating, if
> -e.g. a fix merged for 5.19-rc1 would be backported to 5.10.y, but not to 5.15.y.
> +stable series, one way to do so is by specifying the target series in the
> +subject prefix (e.g. '[PATCH stable 5.15 5.10]' asks that the patch to be

"that the patch is included in..." would be slightly better.

> +included in both 5.10.y and 5.15.y). When doing so, ensure the fix or an
> +equivalent is applicable, submitted, or already present in all newer stable
> +trees still supported. This is meant to prevent regressions that users might
> +later encounter on updating, if e.g. a fix merged for 5.19-rc1 would be
> +backported to 5.10.y, but not to 5.15.y.
>  
>  .. _option_1:
>  

This is a helpful clarification and I like seeing an example. With the
trivial change above:

Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Paul Barker

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x27F4B3459F002257.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature