[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D2B4EC94-0480-4DA1-8945-3CA3AC7485ED@mellanox.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:47:10 +0000
From: Majd Dibbiny <majd@...lanox.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
"christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr" <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
"hal.rosenstock@...il.com" <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
"sean.hefty@...el.com" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/cma: Fix reversed test
We have message sniffer that checks for unwanted prints after each test..
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 28, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:05:52PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>> Do you think this patch needs "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags?
>>
>> It does not.
>
> We always should have fixes tags.
>
> When I'm reviewing, I try to look up the patch which introduced the bug
> so I can figure out what the intent was. Having a Fixes tag speeds up
> my work.
>
> Looking at how the bug was introduced sometimes helps to prevent bugs
> from recurring in the future. For example, I've seen several bugs
> introduced because the right people weren't on the CC to review it. For
> this particular bug it feels like probably this bug could have been
> detected with more testing. I doubt it would have made it into a
> released kernel.
>
> Also it let's you CC the original authors and hopefully they can Ack it.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists