> On Jun 2, 2023, at 9:55 AM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 02.06.23 15:38, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> >>> On Jun 2, 2023, at 7:05 AM, Linux regression tracking #update (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> [TLDR: This mail in primarily relevant for Linux regression tracking. A >>> change or fix related to the regression discussed in this thread was >>> posted or applied, but it did not use a Link: tag to point to the >>> report, as Linus and the documentation call for. >> >> Linus recently stated he did not like Link: tags pointing to an >> email thread on lore. > > Afaik he strongly dislikes them when a Link: tag just points to the > submission of the patch being applied; at the same time he *really > wants* those links if they tell the backstory how a fix came into being, > which definitely includes the report about the issue being fixed (side > note: without those links regression tracking becomes so hard that it's > basically no feasible). I certainly appreciate having that information available. I must have misunderstood Linus' comment. > If my knowledge is not up to date, please if you have a minute do me a > favor and point me to Linus statement your refer to. > >> Also, checkpatch.pl is now complaining about Closes: tags instead >> of Link: tags. A bug was never opened for this issue. > > That was a change by somebody else, but FWIW, just use Closes: (instead > of Link:) with a link to the report on lore, that tag is not reserved > for bugs. > > /me will go and update his boilerplate text used above The specific complaint is about the ordering of Reported-by: and Link: or Closes: tags. Saeed, if it is still possible, you can add: Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/bb2df75d-05be-3f7b-693a-84be195dc2f1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m49b88941c8dc5be42fa960f84ecda680ddb1a778 To my patch. >> I did check the regzbot docs on how to mark this issue closed, >> but didn't find a ready answer. Thank you for following up. > > yw, but no worries, that's what I'm here for. :-D > > Ciao, Thorsten > >>> Things happen, no >>> worries -- but now the regression tracking bot needs to be told manually >>> about the fix. See link in footer if these mails annoy you.] >>> >>> On 08.05.23 14:29, Linux regression tracking #adding (Thorsten Leemhuis) >>> wrote: >>>> On 03.05.23 03:03, Chuck Lever III wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have a Supermicro X10SRA-F/X10SRA-F with a ConnectX®-5 EN network >>>>> interface card, 100GbE single-port QSFP28, PCIe3.0 x16, tall bracket; >>>>> MCX515A-CCAT >>>>> >>>>> When booting a v6.3+ kernel, the boot process stops cold after a >>>>> few seconds. The last message on the console is the MLX5 driver >>>>> note about "PCIe slot advertised sufficient power (27W)". >>>>> >>>>> bisect reports that bbac70c74183 ("net/mlx5: Use newer affinity >>>>> descriptor") is the first bad commit. >>>>> >>>>> I've trolled lore a couple of times and haven't found any discussion >>>>> of this issue. >>>> >>>> #regzbot ^introduced bbac70c74183 >>>> #regzbot title system hang on start-up (irq or mlx5 problem?) >>>> #regzbot ignore-activity >>> >>> #regzbot fix: 368591995d010e6 >>> #regzbot ignore-activity >>> >>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) >>> -- >>> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: >>> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr >>> That page also explains what to do if mails like this annoy you. >> >> -- >> Chuck Lever >> >> -- Chuck Lever
