Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:53:01 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Dmytro Shytyi <dmytro@shytyi.net>,
        kuznet <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        yoshfuji <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        liuhangbin <liuhangbin@gmail.com>, davem <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kbuild-all@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Variable SLAAC: SLAAC with prefixes of
 arbitrary length in PIO
Message-ID: <20201112175301.481f80c2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <8b05710f-5718-986d-659c-916e2b85c892@intel.com>
References: <175b3433a4c.aea7c06513321.4158329434310691736@shytyi.net>
        <202011110944.7zNVZmvB-lkp@intel.com>
        <20201112162423.6b4de8d1@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <8b05710f-5718-986d-659c-916e2b85c892@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:43:56 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/12/20 4:24 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:34:24 +0800 kernel test robot wrote: =20
> >> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> =20
> > Good people of kernel test robot, could you please rephrase this to say
> > that the tag is only appropriate if someone is sending a fix up/follow
> > up patch?
> >=20
> > Folks keep adding those tags on the next revisions of the their patches
> > which is quite misleading. =20
>=20
> I think it's still fair for the lkp folks to get *some* credit for
> reporting these bugs.=C2=A0 I mean, the stated reason[1] for it existing =
is:
>=20
> 	The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and
> 	report them and it hopefully inspires them to help us again in
> 	the future.
>=20
> I do agree, though, that it's confusing *what* they reported, especially
> if the patch in question is fixing something *else*.  Rather than invent
> a new tag, maybe a comment would suffice:
>=20
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> # bug in earlier revision

Fine by me, although its not common to add Reported-by tags for people
who point out issues in review, so why add a tag for the bot?