linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] more printk for 6.15

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

Message-ID: <Z-5VvJsjrRN_lFSt@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:34:54 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] more printk for 6.15

On Wed 2025-04-02 12:10:08, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 at 12:07, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > The whole "link to original submission" is garbage.
> 
> Just to clarify: people should link to the *problem* report. Or to the
> *debugging* thread.
> 
> But linking to the final result is pointless. That's what in the tree,
> and any subsequent discussion about it is stale and late.

I agree that links to the threads where the discussion
happened might be more useful.

I personally use the link (added by b4 am -l) when doing
a code archeology. It often points to a whole patchset with
a cover leter. And it sometimes help to understand
the missing context.

Google is a good alternative. But the link is faster
and reliable.

Of course, the best situation is when the commit message
is good enough and the link is not needed. Which reminds
me that anything which triggered a useful discussion should
be explained in the commit message. I need to care more
about this.

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: The #pragma was discussed in v1 thread, see
    https://lore.kernel.org/r/87iko2ear3.fsf@prevas.dk