On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 01:15:08PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 04:27:32AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 07:15:09PM +0200, Eugenio Pérez wrote: > > > This operation is optional: It it's not implemented, backend feature bit > > > will not be exposed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Message-Id: <20220623160738.632852-2-eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > What is this message id doing here? > > > > I like the Message-Id tag. It means you can `b4 mbox <mesg-id>` and get > the thread. Yes it makes sense in git. But I don't see what it does in this patch posted to the list. It seems to refer to the previous version of the patch here. Which is ok I guess but better called out e.g. Previous-version: <20220623160738.632852-2-eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx> > Linus has complained (rough remembering) that everyone is using the > Link: tag for links to the patch itself. It's supposed to be for Links > to bugzilla or to the spec or whatever. Extra information, too much to > put in the commit message. Now the Link tag is useless because it either > points to the patch or to a bugzilla. Depend on what you want it to do, > it *always* points to the opposite thing. > > But I can't remember what people settled on as the alternative to use > to link to lore... > > In theory, we should be able to figure out the link to lore automatically > and there have been a couple projects which tried to do this but they > can't make it work 100%. Maintainers massage and reformat the patches > too much before applying them. > > regards, > dan carpenter
