On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:51:33AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:16:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think this misunderstands the problem that Andy is trying to fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > The situation: I write a patch. I post it for review. A bot does > > > > > > something and finds a bug (could be compile-error, could be boot > > > > > > problem). That bot sends a bug report with a suggestion to add > > > > > > Reported-by:. That suggestion is inappropriate because the bug never > > > > > > made it upstream, so it looks like the bot reported the "problem" > > > > > > that the patch "fixes". > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not unique to "new feature" patches. If I'm fixing a bug and > > > > > > my fix also contains a bug spotted by a bot, adding Reported-by > > > > > > makes it look like the bot spotted the original bug, rather than > > > > > > spotting a bug in the fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > The best thing to do in this case is nothing. Do not credit the bot. > > > > > > Maybe add a Checked-by:, but that would be a new trailer and I really > > > > > > don't think we need a new kind of trailer to get wrong. > > > > > > > > > > It seems like the only way to fix this is to fix the bots. Adding more > > > > > documentation is unlikely to help in this case. > > > > > > > > Links to the documentation at least may clarify the point in case of a > > > > review. > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > Can't we file a bug to whoever is running the bots (Intel?) and ask them > > > > > to remove the suggestion to add a Reported-by when the bot is testing a > > > > > patch (as opposed to mainline or even -next)? > > > > > > > > The granularity here is not a repo. It's a code itself and in some cases > > > > it might be easy to distinguish new feature from the code modifications, > > > > but when code is already there and feature is just an extension of the > > > > existing file(s), it's hard to tell. And it might be true or not. > > > > > > Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you and Matthew > > > are talking about different things after all. > > > > I'm talking about your suggestion to fix the bots. It's not easy. > > The problem is the same as Matthew explained. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you re-read Mathews description > above, it still seems to me like the issue is that the bots are trying > to claim credit for finding things that haven't been merged yet. > > Your suggestion is to document that the bots should be ignored. My > suggestion is to fix the bots. Originally the kbuild bot used to not have that notice but adding it meant that kbuild bot got a lot more visibility. The truth is that managers love metrics and it helps people get paid. The whole point of kbuild-bot was to search the lists and test code before it gets merged. If they just waited and tested linux-next they would get their reported by tags because most trees don't rebase. But we're punishing them for being better at their job. It's a perverse incentive. We should create a new tag for finding bugs during review. regards, dan carpenter
