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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230509030611.521807993@linuxfoundation.org> <863a112f-f4a4-d580-9687-f6214d555939@linaro.org>
 <2023051035-monitor-sandy-2a5b@gregkh> <CAEUSe79AViqsHimbYbFjkKAxcvROGhFKA2yKVuC3aP1Gm=jc1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEUSe7_ZBW_hPUZYeKkZ6zuckeqYb+O46GdgGx0wE6T0=c5wZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4d3c5462-1788-426a-a44a-e839b1c4970d@roeck-us.net> <2023051154-activator-aside-bc8e@gregkh>
In-Reply-To: <2023051154-activator-aside-bc8e@gregkh>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 18:09:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh2nmNs98AUpv6+BZ3x_bNh6ps+nuufQO2Sn6LdXCbC9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/370] 5.15.111-rc2 review
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIETDrWF6?= <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com,
        srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de, laoar.shao@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:58=E2=80=AFPM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks!  Turns out someone put the wrong "Fixes:" tag in that commit
> which is why I missed it.

Hmm. Presumably the real commit ceeadb83aea2 at some point got
rebased, and had had that other mentioned SHA1 before that.

It might be a good idea in general - not just for stable - if we had
some automation that said "this refers to a commit ID that doesn't
exist".

Of course, sometimes those commits might exist elsewhere (ie the
stable tree obviously refers to upstream commits that are *not*
directly reachable from the commit that refers to it, and thus relies
on another tree not rebasing itself).

But on the whole, I would expect that the normal situation, outside of
that "upstream commit" issue in the stable tree, is that you only
refer to commits that are actually reachable from the referrer commit.

Or do people refer to other branches' (or even other projects') commit IDs?

It might be interesting to have some automation, particularly if it
then might highlight the situation where the same one-line description
does exist under a different commit name...

                Linus