Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:11:59 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
        ak@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, knsathya@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        sdeep@vmware.com, seanjc@google.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 01/30] x86/mm: Fix warning on build with
 X86_MEM_ENCRYPT=y
Message-ID: <20220228171159.pkp3t46pxbs6o2ul@treble>
References: <20220224155630.52734-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220224155630.52734-2-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220227220130.23yjme7jucxo266l@treble>
 <20220228162056.gul22bjr4w6zjslq@black.fi.intel.com>
 <20220228164007.nfrg7xvrl4blzzrm@treble>
 <080f9306-8c72-c7bd-010a-f0ed32c4b692@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <080f9306-8c72-c7bd-010a-f0ed32c4b692@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 08:51:20AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/28/22 08:40, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> maintainer-tip.rst seems disagree with you:
> >>
> >>    A Fixes tag should be added even for changes which do not need to be
> >>    backported to stable kernels, i.e. when addressing a recently introduced
> >>    issue which only affects tip or the current head of mainline.
> >>
> >> I will leave it as is.
> > How does that disagree with me?
> > 
> > The "Fixes" tag is for bug fixes.  If it's not possible to trigger the
> > warning and there's no user impact, it's not a bug.
> 
> Does having Fixes: *break* anything?

People rely on the "Fixes:" tag for actual bug fixes.  Using it here --
along with the rest of the "this is fixing a bug" tone of the title and
description -- is guaranteed to confuse stable maintainers and distros
doing backports.

Again, if nothing's broken from the standpoint of the user then it's not
a bug and shouldn't be reported that way.

> If not, I think I'd generally rather have the metadata with more
> information as opposed to less information.

I would call it misinformation.  How is that useful?

It's ok to reference a related commit in the patch description itself.
Just don't abuse the "Fixes" tag.

But IMO, for the least amount of confusion, it makes more sense to
squash this with the patch which actually requires it.

-- 
Josh