Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <3cf09576-66f2-b18c-0057-2635fc9452de@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 10:43:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
References: <165201148069.536527.1960632033331546251.tglx@xen13>
 <CAHk-=wjMmSZzMJ3Xnskdg4+GGz=5p5p+GSYyFBTh0f-DgvdBWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ff841fdc-4db7-7a3d-8caf-d0cddd0dfa31@leemhuis.info>
 <Ynt1z0eZ19eMqp8I@zn.tnic> <YnvbLx9FKgQwZJ/F@mit.edu>
 <CAHk-=wgUVHucyjp6M7qmn8b=aqwucfS4SQpqOCR5sKr16zoO5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YnwP7QmPzyv5FhrZ@zn.tnic>
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Subject: Re: Link: tag and links to submission and reports (was: Re: [GIT
 pull] core/urgent for v5.18-rc6)
In-Reply-To: <YnwP7QmPzyv5FhrZ@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11.05.22 21:35, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:55:34AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:50 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would argue that it should be the patch submitter's responsibility
>>> to explicitly add a URL to the problem report.
>>
>> I agree in the perfect case.
>>
>> But in practice, we have a lot more patch submitters than we have
>> maintainers, and not all "leaf developers" necessarily know how to do
>> everything.
>>
>> So the maintainer should probably expect to fix things up. Not always,
>> but also not a "the developer should have done this, so I won't do it"
>>
>> This isn't so different from the fact that not everybody writes
>> English proficiently - people do hopefully end up fixing things up as
>> they get passed onwards.
> 
> And, in addition, what happens most often in my experience is I
> constantly get to point submitters to our process documentation -
> submitting-patches especially - as not a small number of them are not
> aware of different aspects of the whole patch dance: tags, SOB chains,
> etc. And the Link tag is no exception here.

Which leads to the question: can we (and do we want to) teach
scripts/checkpatch.pl to point out when a Link: tag is missing and
likely appropriate? If a "Reported-by:" is present there should be a
"Link:" as well, unless the issue was reported privately, via IRC or
something like that. A "Fixes:" tag is also a strong indicator that a
link might be appropriate, but not as good.

Ciao, Thorsten