[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200204142904.17079839@cakuba.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:29:04 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Max Neunhoeffer <max@...ngodb.com>,
Christopher Kohlhoff <chris.kohlhoff@...arpool.io>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] epoll: fix possible lost wakeup on epoll_ctl() path
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:20:03 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> On 2020-02-04 17:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:41:42 +0100, Roman Penyaev wrote:
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Could you please suggest me, do I need to include Reported-by tag,
> >> or reference to the bug is enough?
> >
> > Sorry to jump in but FWIW I like the Reported-and-bisected-by tag to
> > fully credit the extra work done by the reporter.
>
> Reported-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@...ngodb.com>
> Bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@...ngodb.com>
>
> Correct?
That should work, I like the brevity of the single combined
Reported-and-bisected-by: Max Neunhoeffer <max@...ngodb.com>
line but looks like some separate the two even when both point
to the same person.
Unfortunately Documentation/process is silent on any "bisected-by"
use, so you'll have to exercise your own judgement :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists