Re: [PATCH] EDAC/i10nm: Fix mdev reference leak in i10nm_get_ddr_munits()

["Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 09:50:57PM -0700, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Dropping stable@ from CC as it shouldn't be on CC.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 09:04:30AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > I though urgent was for:
> > 1) Fixing something that broke in the current merge window
> > 2) Fixing something that's really important (security, corruption)
> > 
> > This is just an old issue that's been around for ages.
> 
> If this patch has CC:stable and a Fixes: tag, then it'll get backported to
> stable. So does it matter when it gets sent to Linus?
> 
> IOW, those two things do turn it into an urgent patch.

The "Fixes:" tag is a matter of fact. The "Cc: stable" is just an
opinion.

An extreme example would be a patch that fixes a spelling error in a
comment posted on a Friday before Linus is expected to tag a "final"
release in a cycle. A "Cc: stable" on that patch shouldn't trigger
sending to Linus via an urgent pull.

But if you want to add this patch to edac-urgent, then go ahead.

-Tony