[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210319094759.GH2087@kadam>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 12:47:59 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
alloc_workqueue call
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> >>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> >>>
> >>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> >>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> >>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
> >>
> >> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
> >> series.
> >>
> > Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?
>
> If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do
> we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm
> folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that.
I've always lobied for a Fixes-from: tag, but the kbuild-bot tells
everyone to add a Reported-by: tag. But then a lot of people are like
Reported-by doesn't make sense. And other people are like Reported-by
is fine, what's wrong with it?
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists