Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] mtd: spi-nor: sst: fix BPn bits for the SST25VF064C

[<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>]

On 12/3/20 4:39 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Am 2020-12-03 15:34, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com:
>> On 12/3/20 1:00 AM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>> the content is safe
>>>
>>> This flash part actually has 4 block protection bits.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.7+
>>
>> While the patch is correct according to the datasheet, it was
>> not tested, so it's not a candidate for stable. I would update
>> the commit message to indicate that the the patch was made
>> solely on datasheet info and not tested, I would add the fixes
>> tag, and strip cc-ing to stable.
> 
> What is the difference? Any commit with a Fixes tag will also land
> in the stable trees. Just that it will cause compile errors for
> kernel older than 5.7.
> 
> So if you don't want to have it in stable then you must not add
> a Fixes: tag either.
> 

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst doesn't say that the
Fixes tag is a guarantee that a patch will hit the stable kernels.

Since this patch was not tested, it's not a candidate for stable as
per the first rule. It's a theoretical fix, because it should indeed
fix the locking as per the datasheet. Even for theoretical fixes, I
would like to know what commit broke the functionality, and that's why
I asked for the Fixes tag.

We don't want the patch in stable, so that's why I said that I would
indicate in the commit message that it was not tested, and that I
would strip the cc to stable.

Maybe it's just my understanding. Others may help.