On Wed 2021-08-11 09:46:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:28:43AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > From: Jonathan Gray <jsg@jsg.id.au>
> > > 
> > > The backport of c9d9fdbc108af8915d3f497bbdf3898bf8f321b8 to 5.10 in
> > > 6976f3cf34a1a8b791c048bbaa411ebfe48666b1 removed more than it should
> > > have leading to 'batch' being used uninitialised.  The 5.13 backport and
> > > the mainline commit did not remove the portion this patch adds back.
> > 
> > This patch has no upstream equivalent, right?
> > 
> > Which is okay -- it explains it in plain english, but it shows that
> > scripts should not simply search for anything that looks like SHA and
> > treat it as upsteam commit it.
> 
> Sounds like you have a broken script if you do it that way.

That is what you told me to do!

https://lore.kernel.org/stable/YQEvUay+1Rzp04SO@kroah.com/

I would happily adapt my script, but there's no
good/documented/working way to determine upstream commit given -stable
commit.

If we could agree on

Commit: (SHA)

in the beggining of body, that would be great.

Upstream: (SHA)

in sign-off area would be even better.

Best regards,

								Pavel
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany