[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIBSPW0NYWaY4JFj@rli9-mobl>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:47:41 +0800
From: Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@...il.com>,
Maxim Krasnyansky <maxk@....qualcomm.com>,
anton ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
linux-hardening <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Reported-by/Closes tag for uncommitted issues (was: Re: [PATCH
v2] uml: Replace strlcpy with strscpy)
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 11:43:11AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 17:39 +0800, Philip Li wrote:
> >
> > Is that ok we just take this phrase as a quick improvement for first step, which
> > is
> >
> > "If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new
> > version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags:"
> >
> > This could help remind for most cases if not all. Also this allows us
> > not doing "complex" judgement by the bot itself.
>
> Sure, feel free. But yeah, that was the idea, that the decision logic
> wouldn't really need to be in the bot, that feels very difficult.
>
> Maybe someone else on the thread will have a better suggestion :)
Thanks a lot, we will adjust the phrase like this as initial step to resolve
some confusions. And as you said, we welcome more suggestions to improve
the bot.
>
>
> johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists