Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2022 13:27:54 +0200 | From | Thorsten Leemhuis <> | Subject | Link: 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
| |