On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Thorsten Leemhuis regressions@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 18.04.22 13:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Mario Limonciello mario.limonciello@amd.com wrote:
On 4/17/22 07:24, firew4lker wrote:
...
Linus Walleij,
As this is backported to 5.15.y, 5.16.y, 5.17.y and those all had point releases a bunch of people are hitting it now. If you choose to adopt this patch instead of revert the broken one, you can add to the commit message too:
I prefer to explicitly tell that this is a link to a bug report, hence BugLink:. But this is just my 2 cents.
Please use "Link:" as explained by the kernel's documentation in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst (disclaimer: I recently made this more explicit, but the concept it old). That's important, as people have tools that rely on it -- I for example run one to track regressions, but I might not be the only one running a tool that relies on proper tags.
To me it looks like a documentation confusion since Link is what is added automatically by `b4` tool. Having Link from the patch thread (and not always the one with the discussion) as well as link to the issue will be confusing.
And FWIW: I'm all for making this more explicit, but people already use various different tags (BugLink is just one of them) for that and that just results in a mess.
Nope, it results otherwise. The Link is Link to the thread, which you may find a lot in the kernel history. Making bug report links and links to the patch threads that's what results in a mess.
I proposed consistent tags, but that didn't get much feedback. Maybe I should try again. Makes me wonder: where does BugLink come from? Is that something that people are used to from GitLab, GitHub, or something?
It comes from kernel history :-)