lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectLink: tag and links to submission and reports (was: Re: [GIT pull] core/urgent for v5.18-rc6)
    On 08.05.22 20:00, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 5:05 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
    >>
    >> A single bugfix for the PASID management code, which freed the PASID too
    >> early. The PASID needs to be tied to the mm lifetime, not to the address
    >> space lifetime.
    >
    > So I have to once more complain about the -tip tree "Link:" usage.

    Many thx for reminding people about the tag. FWIW, that's a problem in
    a lot or subsystems and makes my regression tracking efforts hard, as my
    tracking bot relies on the 'Link:' tag. If it's missing I thus have to
    manually search if patches were posted or committed to fix a regression,
    which makes the tracking hard and annoying. :-/

    > Again, the commit has a link to the patch *submission*, which is
    > almost entirely useless. There's no link to the actual problem the
    > patch fixes.

    It seems quite a few developers are under the impressions that "Link:"
    is just for the patch submission and not to be used for other things.
    That's why some people invented other tags. I see "BugLink" quite often
    these days, but there are also other tags in use (some drm people used
    "References:" for a while).

    Do we care? Should we try to clean this up while making things a bit
    more straight forward at the same time by making it more obvious what a
    link is actually about? I once suggested we use something like
    * "Submitted:" or "Posted:" for the patch submission
    * "Reported:" or "BugLink:" for any reports that lead to the

    That would leave "Link:" ambiguous and usable for anything else (and b4
    likely could be fixed easily to set a different tag; but sure, there
    would be a transition period).

    But there was not much feedback on the idea. Do you think I should pick
    up this again? Or is this something I should bring up during this years
    kernel summit?

    > [...]
    > Put another way: I can see that
    > Reported-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com>

    With a "Reported:" tag like mentioned above we could stop using
    "Reported-by:" if we wanted to reduce the overhead (or make it
    optional). But OTOH I guess it's a bad idea, as having this in there
    will motivate some people to submit reports. And is good for stats reg.
    syzbot and 0-day (but I guess those could be generated from proper
    links, too).

    BTW: Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst states '''Be careful in the
    addition of tags to your patches: only Cc: is appropriate for addition
    without the explicit permission of the person named.''' Is that actually
    true? A lot of people seem to set "Reported-by:" without getting
    explicit permission. If that is fine I'd prepare a patch to fix the docs.

    Ciao, Thorsten

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-05-10 13:29    [W:2.096 / U:0.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site