On 25 June 2026 19:38:14 BST, Andrew Morton [off-list ref]
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 17:30:15 +0200 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

quoted

Some callers handle SYS_INFO_ALL_BT themselves before calling

sys_info().

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

mask into

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

-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.

Well, as said, this potentially asks -stable maintainers to cherrypick
individual patches from this series into various kernel versions. 
Potentially resulting in code combinations which nobody has tested. 
Heck, the individual patches may not even compile.

If we're to add the series to mainline as a single atomic lump then we
should add it to -stable as a single atomic lump, as that's the only
thing which has been tested.  To communicate this to -stable
maintainers we can choose a Fixes: target to which the series can be
added as a single atomic lump.

Of course, we could always discuss this with -stable maintainers ;)

Hi Andrew, I ended up deciding on a generic fixes tag on V3, if you
would like to have a look.

Thanks!