lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:39, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I think the question is why we are retaining this Reported-by header
> > to begin with. Even though the early feedback is appreciated,
> > crediting the bot for eternity for a version of the patch that never
> > got merged seems a bit excessive. Also, it may suggest that the bot
> > was involved in reporting an issue that the patch aims to fix but that
> > is not the case.
>
> That is supposed to be explained in [] properly so that there's no
> misreading of why that tag's there.
>
> > The last thing we want is Sasha's bot to jump on patches adding new
> > functionality just because it has a reported-by line.
>
> It should jump on patches which have Fixes: tags. But Sasha's bot is
> nuts regardless. :-)
>
> > So I suggest dropping the Reported-by credit as well as the [] context
> > regarding v1
>
> So I don't mind having a Reported-by: tag with an explanation of what
> it reported. We slap all kinds of tags so having some attribution for
> the work the 0day bot does to catch such errors is reasonable. I presume
> they track this way how "useful" it is, by counting the Reported-by's or
> so, as they suggest one should add a Reported-by in their reports.
>
> And without any attribution what the 0day bot reported, it might decide
> not to report anything next time, I'd venture a guess.
>
> And the same argument can be had for Suggested-by: tags: one could
> decide not to add that tag and the person who's doing the suggesting
> might decide not to suggest anymore.
>
> So I think something like:
>
> [ Fix a build breakage in an earlier version. ]
> Reported-by: 0day bot
>
> is fine as long as it makes it perfectly clear what Reported-by tag
> is for and as long as ts purpose for being present there is clear, I
> don't see an issue...
>

I don't think it adds much value tbh, but I am not going to obsess
about it either.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-23 20:25    [W:0.042 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site