[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230301204602.5e9bf3c0@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 20:46:02 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Kai Wasserbäch <kai@....carbon-project.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] checkpatch: warn when Reported-by: is not
followed by Link:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:35:19 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> From: Kai Wasserbäch <kai@....carbon-project.org>
>
> Encourage patch authors to link to reports by issuing a warning, if
> a Reported-by: is not accompanied by a link to the report. Those links
> are often extremely useful for any code archaeologist that wants to know
> more about the backstory of a change than the commit message provides.
> That includes maintainers higher up in the patch-flow hierarchy, which
> is why Linus asks developers to add such links [1, 2, 3]. To quote [1]:
Is it okay if we exclude syzbot reports from this rule?
If full syzbot report ID is provided - it's as good as a link.
And regression tracking doesn't seem to happen much on syzbot
reports either.
I like the addition otherwise, it's already catching missing links
in netdev land!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists