linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the xfs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <lculratuqh5wkeb4q3s2zaev74tmnucr4hxqnobuv5gtad66ee@sv3q5n6mj2tw>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:52:10 +0100
From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, 
	David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the xfs tree

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 02:31:59PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 08:21:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In commit
> >
> >   bc0651d93a7b ("xfs: fix online repair probing when CONFIG_XFS_ONLINE_REPAIR=n")
> >
> > Fixes tag
> >
> >   Fixes: 48a72f60861f79 ("xfs: don't complain about unfixed metadata when repairs were injected")
> >
> > has these problem(s):
> >
> >   - Subject does not match target commit subject
> >     Just use
> >         git log -1 --format='Fixes: %h ("%s")'
> >
> > maybe you meant
> >
> > Fixes: 48a72f60861f ("xfs: refactor repair forcing tests into a repair.c helper")
> >
> > or
> >
> > Fixes: 8336a64eb75c ("xfs: don't complain about unfixed metadata when repairs were injected")
> 
> Yes, 8336a64eb75c.
> 
> This patch has been on the list for a month now, and nobody complained.
> Probably because people aren't good at distinguishing one sequence of
> hexadecimal from another.
> 
> Could we /please/ have a bot to warn about these annotation problems
> when patches are on the list for review, rather than a month later after
> it finally enters for-next, without any of the authors, reviewers, or
> maintainers having noticed?
> 
> Maybe the rest of you are all excellent at this, and I should just fuck
> off and quit.
> 

FWIW, I've been working on some scripts to better validate patches, but lacks me
some time, also, a bot would be indeed the best approach.

I don't plan to validate patches until I pull them in, and this will usually
happen way after the patches hit the list. So, Darrick's suggestion to get these
problems early, won't be fixed during integration.


> --D
> 
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> 
>