On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 03:50:38PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Javi, > > On 09/01/2024 15:42, Javi Merino wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 03:31:55PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi Javi, > > > > > > Title: Any reason this is titled for-4.18? Shouldn't this patch also be > > > merged in staging? > > > > This is for staging and 4.18. If the tag "for-4.18" meant "this is > > only for 4.18", then that's not what I meant. Sorry for that. > > We usually use "for-4.XX" during code freeze to indicate whether a patch > should be part of the upcoming relase of the next week. Hence my confusion.
Ok, I know for next time. Thanks for the clarification. > Outside of the code freeze, we sometimes add the tag "Backport: 4.XX+" just > above the Signed-off-by in addition to the Fixes tag to indicate how far the > backport should go. The Fixes tag is also sufficient. > > As a side node, this is fixing experimental code. So in general we would not > backport such patch (we only do backport for supported features). This is > because there are no guarantee that an experimental would not crash Xen. > > Although, the tag is still useful for downstream that may have decided to > take the patch in (I think AMD/Xilinx is using them) and accept some of the > risks. > > Stefano is the person doing the backport for Arm. So I will let him decide > whether he wants to backport it. Fair enough. Cheers, Javi
