On Thu 2026-06-25 16:31:47, Bradley Morgan wrote:

On June 25, 2026 4:30:15 PM GMT+01:00, Petr Mladek [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

On Wed 2026-06-24 13:34:19, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:34:58 +0000 Bradley Morgan [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

quoted

Some callers handle SYS_INFO_ALL_BT themselves before calling

sys_info().

quoted

quoted

Add a helper that strips that bit without turning an all_bt only mask

into

quoted

quoted

a kernel_sys_info fallback.

I assume this patch wants a Fixes: and a cc:stable also.

It would be nice to have the conventional [0/N] cover letter to tell
readers what this is all about.

The patches all have different Fixes: targets.  This risks inviting the
-stable maintainers to merge only some of the patches into some
kernels, resulting in an untested combination and which might break
things.

I do not agree here. The Fixes tag should should point to a commit
which introduced the regression into the given code. And finding
some magic common point beause there is some magic undocumented
process for maintaining stable kernels sounds like a way to hell
to me.

Best Regards,
Petr

oh no.
I added the generic tag to V4, no worries, it is the earliest possible
fixes tag. But I really don't wanna be doing a V5 just to revert my
fixes tags.

This is the risk when sending 4 versions of a fix within 5 days.
A good practice is to wait at least one week before sending another
version. It gives people chance to react and helps the discussion
to settle.

That said, I am not going to block this because of the fixes tags.
But I suggest to wait longer next time.

Best Regards,
Petr