On 19/03/2021 10:47, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote: >>> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote: >>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count, >>>>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the >>>>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count. >>>> >>>> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the >>>> series. >>>> >>> Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB? >> >> If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do >> we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm >> folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that. > > I've always lobied for a Fixes-from: tag, but the kbuild-bot tells > everyone to add a Reported-by: tag. But then a lot of people are like > Reported-by doesn't make sense. And other people are like Reported-by > is fine, what's wrong with it? If the original commit is a fix and the fix for it is being squashed, then Reported-by might mislead. kbuild-bot tests also patches from list directly, so in such case the patch can be re-done with a risk of loosing kbuild's credits. But when the patch is already in the maintainer tree - just create a fixup. You preserve the development history and the kbuild's credits. Best regards, Krzysztof
