Provide a concrete example of how to specify what stable series should be targeted for change inclusion. Looking around on the stable mailing list this seems like a common practice already, so let mention that in the documentation as well (but worded so it is not interpreted as the only way to do so).
Reviewed-by: Paul Barker paul.barker.ct@bp.renesas.com Signed-off-by: Shung-Hsi Yu shung-hsi.yu@suse.com --- Change from v1: - "asks that the patch to be included in..." is edit to "asks that the patch is included in..." for better wording (Paul) --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index edf90bbe30f4..d22aa2280f6e 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -57,10 +57,13 @@ options for cases where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older series (for example due to API changes).
When using option 2 or 3 you can ask for your change to be included in specific -stable series. When doing so, ensure the fix or an equivalent is applicable, -submitted, or already present in all newer stable trees still supported. This is -meant to prevent regressions that users might later encounter on updating, if -e.g. a fix merged for 5.19-rc1 would be backported to 5.10.y, but not to 5.15.y. +stable series, one way to do so is by specifying the target series in the +subject prefix (e.g. '[PATCH stable 5.15 5.10]' asks that the patch is +included in both 5.10.y and 5.15.y). When doing so, ensure the fix or an +equivalent is applicable, submitted, or already present in all newer stable +trees still supported. This is meant to prevent regressions that users might +later encounter on updating, if e.g. a fix merged for 5.19-rc1 would be +backported to 5.10.y, but not to 5.15.y.
.. _option_1: