Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] Fixup NLM and kNFSD file lock callbacks

[Benjamin Coddington]

On 12 Sep 2024, at 14:17, Chuck Lever III wrote:

>> On Sep 12, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Sep 2024, at 10:01, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>
>>> For the NFSD and exportfs hunks:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>
>>> "lockd: introduce safe async lock op" is in v6.10. Does this
>>> series need to be backported to v6.10.y ? Should the series
>>> have "Fixes: 2dd10de8e6bc ("lockd: introduce safe async lock
>>> op")" ?
>>
>> Thanks Chuck! Probably yes, if we want notifications fixed up there.  It
>> should be sufficient to add this to the signoff area for at least the first
>> three (and fourth for cleanup):
>>
>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.10.x
>
> 2dd10de8e6bc landed in v6.7.
>
> I suppose that since v6.10.y is likely to be closed by
> the time this series is applied upstream, this tag might
> be confusing.
>
> Thus Fixes: 2dd10de8e6bc and a plain Cc: stable should
> work best. Then whichever stable kernel is open when your
> fixes are merged upstream will automatically get fixed.

So you want "Fixes: 2dd10de8e6bc" on all these patches?  Fixing the problem
requires all of the first three patches together.  My worry is that a
"Fixes" on each implies a complete fix within that patch, so its really not
appropriate.

The stable-kernel-rules.rst documentation says for a series, the Cc: stable
tag should be suffient to request dependencies within the series, so that's
why I suggested it for the version you requested.

What exactly would you like to see?  I am happy to send a 2nd version.

Ben