The current wording on third option of stable kernel submission doesn't
mention how to specify desired kernel version. Submitters reading the
documentation could simply send multiple backported patches of the same
upstream commit without any kernel version information, leaving stable
maintainers and reviewers hard time to figure out the correct kernel
version to be applied.

Describe the subject prefix for specifying kernel version for the case
above.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
---
 This patch is sent as response to [1].

 [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20221101074351.GA8310@amd/

 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 2fd8aa593a2851..409ae73c1ffcd1 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -77,7 +77,9 @@ Option 3
 Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
 stable@vger.kernel.org.  You must note the upstream commit ID in the
 changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
-it to be applied to.
+it to be applied to by adding desired kernel version number to the
+patch subject prefix. For example, patches targeting 5.15 kernel should
+have ``[PATCH 5.15]`` prefix.
 
 :ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
 :ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed

base-commit: 30a0b95b1335e12efef89dd78518ed3e4a71a763
-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 08:17:43PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> The current wording on third option of stable kernel submission doesn't
> mention how to specify desired kernel version. Submitters reading the
> documentation could simply send multiple backported patches of the same
> upstream commit without any kernel version information, leaving stable
> maintainers and reviewers hard time to figure out the correct kernel
> version to be applied.
> 
> Describe the subject prefix for specifying kernel version for the case
> above.
> 
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> ---
>  This patch is sent as response to [1].
> 
>  [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20221101074351.GA8310@amd/
> 
>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index 2fd8aa593a2851..409ae73c1ffcd1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -77,7 +77,9 @@ Option 3
>  Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
>  stable@vger.kernel.org.  You must note the upstream commit ID in the
>  changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
> -it to be applied to.
> +it to be applied to by adding desired kernel version number to the
> +patch subject prefix. For example, patches targeting 5.15 kernel should
> +have ``[PATCH 5.15]`` prefix.

No, sorry, this is not needed and does not have to be in the subject
line at all.

The current wording is fine, it's just that people don't always read it.

so consider this a NAK.

thanks,

greg k-h-

On 11/1/22 20:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> No, sorry, this is not needed and does not have to be in the subject
> line at all.
> 
> The current wording is fine, it's just that people don't always read it.
> 
> so consider this a NAK.
> 

Hi Greg,

There was a case when a submitter submitted multiple backports (which
qualified for third option) without specifying the prefix, hence a
reviewer complained [1].

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221101074351.GA8310@amd/

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 11:19:44AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 11/1/22 20:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > No, sorry, this is not needed and does not have to be in the subject
> > line at all.
> > 
> > The current wording is fine, it's just that people don't always read it.
> > 
> > so consider this a NAK.
> > 
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> There was a case when a submitter submitted multiple backports (which
> qualified for third option) without specifying the prefix, hence a
> reviewer complained [1].
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221101074351.GA8310@amd/

Yes, and as I said on that thread, to you directly:
	https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y2Ef0hK4rTmAoEUs@kroah.com/
the submission was done correctly, no one should have complained, and
the patches were applied by me to the correct branches without any
problems at all.

This is not an issue, this change is not needed at all.

greg k-h