Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 02:22:58 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        mie@igel.co.jp
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup
Message-ID: <20220511021608-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20220510082351-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=wjPR+bj7P1O=MAQWXp0Mx2hHuNQ1acn6gS+mRo_kbo5Lg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjPR+bj7P1O=MAQWXp0Mx2hHuNQ1acn6gS+mRo_kbo5Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 5:24 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > A last minute fixup of the transitional ID numbers.
> > Important to get these right - if users start to depend on the
> > wrong ones they are very hard to fix.
> 
> Hmm. I've pulled this, but those numbers aren't exactly "new".
> 
> They've been that way since 5.14, so what makes you think people
> haven't already started depending on them?

Yes they have been in the header but they are not used by *Linux* yet.
My worry is for when we start using them and then someone backports
the patches without backporting the macro fix.
Maybe we should just drop these until there's a user, but I am
a bit wary of a step like this so late in the cycle.

> And - once again - I want to complain about the "Link:" in that commit.
> 
> It points to a completely useless patch submission. It doesn't point
> to anything useful at all.
> 
> I think it's a disease that likely comes from "b4", and people decided
> that "hey, I can use the -l parameter to add that Link: field", and it
> looks better that way.
> 
> And then they add it all the time, whether it makes any sense or not.
> 
> I've mainly noticed it with the -tip tree, but maybe that's just
> because I've happened to look at it.
> 
> I really hate those worthless links that basically add zero actual
> information to the commit.
> 
> The "Link" field is for _useful_ links. Not "let's add a link just
> because we can".
> 
>                            Linus


OK I will stop doing this.
I thought they are handy for when there are several versions of the
patch. It helps me make sure I applied the latest one. Saving the
message ID of the original mail in some other way would also be ok.
Any suggestions for a better way to do this?

-- 
MST