On 25/08/2021 12:01, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:45:58AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 25/08/2021 08:37, CGEL wrote: >>> From: Jing Yangyang <jing.yangyang@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Fix the following coccicheck warning: >>> ./drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-core.c:1665:0-23:WARNING >>> tegra210_emc_debug_min_rate_fops should be defined >>> with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE >>> ./drivers/memory/tegra/tegra210-emc-core.c:1726:0-23:WARNING >>> tegra210_emc_debug_temperature_fops should be defined >>> with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE >> >> Thanks for the patch. >> >> One error message is enough. They are the same. >> >>> >>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Where is the report? We work here in a public, so if there is a report I >> assume we can reach it? In case the report does not exist, anyone can >> run checkpatch, coccinelle, smatch and sparse, so how does this differs >> from me running checkpatch? > > Someone asked for these tags when it was Huawei sending patches from > the Hulk Robot so no everyone adds them and Hulk Robot is the #1 bug > reporter. Hulk Robot just crossed the 2000 tag mark recently. Yes, I know, my questions where rather rhetorical. :) Hulk Robot reports are ridiculous, in my opinion. The tool (checkpatch) used to detect warning is public, so from community perspective this does not differ from John Smith sending a fix for a checkpatch issue. However I do not expect tags like: From: John Smith ... Reported-by: John Smith Signed-off-by: John Smith How does it look? Neither I expect some unknown, hidden, secret reports like: Reported-by: foo bar Signed-off-by: John Smith Simply the credit of running the tool (e.g. checkpatch) is already in the patch authorship. The Reported-by is for crediting additional work related to the report. No report, no credit. Otherwise the value of Reported-by cease to exist... Best regards, Krzysztof
