[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YuuRcit5hgzW1Pga@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 11:29:22 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...mail.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Link: tag and links to submission and reports (was: Re: [GIT
pull] core/urgent for v5.18-rc6)
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:43:07AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Which leads to the question: can we (and do we want to) teach
> scripts/checkpatch.pl to point out when a Link: tag is missing and
> likely appropriate? If a "Reported-by:" is present there should be a
> "Link:" as well, unless the issue was reported privately, via IRC or
> something like that. A "Fixes:" tag is also a strong indicator that a
> link might be appropriate, but not as good.
All good ideas, sure.
At least pointing it out as a hint - not necessarily as a warning -
would be a good idea. And say, "hey, and while you're adding a Link
tag, pls make sure it points to the mail which has the most relevant
discussion on the matter your patch is fixing."
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists