On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:30:56AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 10:20 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 11/30/18 10:18 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2018-12-01 at 00:38 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Fixes: 445251d0f4d329a ("blk-mq: fix discard merge with scheduler
> > > > attached")
> > >
> > > Since this patch fixes a bug introduced in kernel v4.16, does it need
> > > a "Cc: stable" tag?
> >
> > Like the other one, isn't stable implied with Fixes in there? You'd want
> > a stable backport for any kernel that has that patchset. I think that's
> > a stronger hint than stable cc.
>
> (+Greg KH)
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Would it be possible to clarify what your preferences are for adding a
> "Cc: stable" tag?
Doesn't:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
describe it well enough?
Hint, putting a "Fixes:" only tag on a patch is nice, but will not
guarantee it will end up in the stable tree. Only a "Cc: stable@..."
tag will. Putting both on, if you know the fixes commit, is the best.
thanks,
greg k-h
