On 3/19/21 3:59 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 18/03/2021 21:42, 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. > > Why it is being redone if it was put into next? And even then, several > other maintainers just apply a fix on top (I think Andrew Morton, Greg > KH, Mark Brown) to avoid rebasing, preserve the history and also give > credits to the fixer. linux-next doesn't have continual history, and I rebase my for-next all the time. Since the series was going to be re-done and applied to a different tree even, it would be silly to retain a bug _just_ so that we can have credits to the fixer separately. For this case, it's rebased anyway, and there's honestly not any history to preserve here. The only downside is losing the fixer attribution, which I do agree is annoying and hence why I asked/lobbied in a fixes-by kind of tag. -- Jens Axboe
