Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:58:31 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the kvm tree
Message-ID: <20210417005831.3785688b@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <2b825142-fdd9-be35-6d88-bb3b9c985122@redhat.com>
References: <20210416222731.3e82b3a0@canb.auug.org.au>
        <00222197-fb22-ab0a-97e2-11c9f85a67f1@de.ibm.com>
        <2b825142-fdd9-be35-6d88-bb3b9c985122@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/0DmwpD/swBEIc1UY/TlK=+X";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Precedence: bulk

--Sig_/0DmwpD/swBEIc1UY/TlK=+X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:02:01 +0200 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrot=
e:
>
> On 16/04/21 14:38, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 16.04.21 14:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote: =20
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> In commit
> >>
> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0 c3171e94cc1c ("KVM: s390: VSIE: fix MVPG handling for pre=
fixing and >> MSO")
> >>
> >> Fixes tag
> >>
> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0 Fixes: bdf7509bbefa ("s390/kvm: VSIE: correctly handle MV=
PG when in >> VSIE")
> >>
> >> has these problem(s):
> >>
> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0 - Subject does not match target commit subject
> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Just use
> >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0git log -1 --format=3D'Fixes: %h ("%s")' =20
> >=20
> > Hmm, this has been sitting in kvms390/next for some time now. Is this a=
 > new check?
> >  =20
>=20
> Maybe you just missed it when it was reported for kvms390?
>=20
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-next/msg59652.html

It was a different commit SHA then and was reported because the Fixes
SHA did not exist.  It was fixed the next day, so I guess either I
missed reporting this different problem, or I thought at least it had
been fixed to use the correct SHA.  I am not completely consistent,
sometimes :-)
--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

--Sig_/0DmwpD/swBEIc1UY/TlK=+X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmB5phcACgkQAVBC80lX
0GwoqggAhj7E4OiKMOnBWhl1ZjaMdZAidgXea6JGZGTB3UEhRtJVCMk3zjqfN6N5
BHE3GS3zfIlipzavzSDc/Qu0Vy/CqTndlYVZB+RzJszegcwTVu9Z1Cv9f+gHARjz
QGhwHSMcJncqzICp/3fyPQvbmruZr8e3ah7iWucCOfgWj6vri5A/jDjSjIR1UKoN
kbf38gi14BGsULsASiSEMREo2bksWBkhea0mQ8qzd/FFQgc/IS1kInazRNfxzH6k
hGzdVc+Np9e1W3Q0LIzWiENnFiFL+hyWKkQZs+W6pk/g68jaKt4X6CG/+weKOzsv
Ld0tGk7SIU3DhXdxstZPgnph3UiyDA==
=5y7J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/0DmwpD/swBEIc1UY/TlK=+X--