Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220219012433.890941-1-pcc@google.com> <7a6afd53-a5c8-1be3-83cc-832596702401@huawei.com>
 <CANpmjNO=1utdh_52sVWb1rNCDme+hbMJzP9GMfF1xWigmy2WsA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNO=1utdh_52sVWb1rNCDme+hbMJzP9GMfF1xWigmy2WsA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:30:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMn1gO7S++yR4=DjrPZU_POAHP8Pfxaa3P2Cy__Ggu+kN9pqBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: update function name in comments
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

 On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:15 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 03:00, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022/2/19 9:24, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> > > The function kasan_global_oob was renamed to kasan_global_oob_right,
> > > but the comments referring to it were not updated. Do so.
> > >
> > > Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I20faa90126937bbee77d9d44709556c3dd4b40be
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
> > > Fixes: e5f4728767d2 ("kasan: test: add globals left-out-of-bounds test")
> >
> > This Fixes tag is unneeded.
> >
> > Except the above nit, this patch looks good to me. Thanks.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
>
> And yes, the Fixes tag should be removed to not have stable teams do
> unnecessary work.

I thought that Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org controlled whether the patch
is to be taken to the stable kernel and Fixes: was more of an
informational tag. At least that's what this seems to say:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight

> +Cc'ing missing mailing lists (use get_maintainers.pl - in particular,
> LKML is missing, which should always be Cc'd for archival purposes so
> that things like b4 can work properly).

get_maintainers.pl tends to list a lot of reviewers so I try to filter
it to only the most important recipients or only use it for
"important" patches (like the uaccess logging patch). It's also a bit
broken in my workflow --
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210913233435.24585-1-pcc@google.com/
fixes one of the problems but there are others.

Doesn't b4 scan all the mailing lists? So I'd have imagined it
wouldn't matter which one you send it to.

Peter