On 21.03.22 14:41, Miquel Raynal wrote: > regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:51:10 +0100: >> On 21.03.22 13:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>> regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:48:11 +0100: >>> >>>> On 16.03.22 16:54, Tokunori Ikegami wrote: >>>>> As pointed out by this bug report [1], buffered writes are now broken on >>>>> S29GL064N. This issue comes from a rework which switched from using chip_good() >>>>> to chip_ready(), because DQ true data 0xFF is read on S29GL064N and an error >>>>> returned by chip_good(). One way to solve the issue is to revert the change >>>>> partially to use chip_ready for S29GL064N. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Why did you switch from the documented format for links you added on my >>>> request (see >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/f1b44e87-e457-7783-d46e-0d577cea3b72@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> ) to v2 to something else that is not recognized by tools and scripts >>>> that rely on proper link tags? You are making my and maybe other peoples >>>> life unnecessary hard. :-(( >>>> >>>> FWIW, the proper style should support footnote style like this: >>>> >>>> Link: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> Ciao, Thorsten >>>> >>>> #regzbot ^backmonitor: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/b687c259-6413-26c9-d4c9-b3afa69ea124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>> >>> Because today's requirement from maintainers is to provide a Link >>> tag that points to the mail discussion of the patch being applied. >> >> That can be an additional Link tag, that is done all the time. >> >>> I >>> then asked to use the above form instead to point to the bug report >>> because I don't see the point of having a "Link" tag for it? > > Perhaps I should emphasize that I don't remember your initial request > regarding the use of a Link tag Happen, no worries. > and my original idea was to help this > contributor, not kill your tools which I actually know very little > about. >>> But it's not your own project, we are all working with thousands of >> people together on this project on various different fronts. That needs >> coordination, as some things otherwise become hard or impossible. That's >> why we have documentation that explains how to do some things. Not >> following it just because you don't like it is not helpful and in this >> case makes my life as a volunteer a lot harder. > > Let's be honest, you are referring to a Documentation patch that *you* > wrote Correct, but in case of submitting-patches it was just a clarification how to place links; why the whole aspect was missing in the other is kinda odd and likely lost in history... > and was merged into Linus' tree mid January. How often do you > think people used to the contribution workflow monitor these files? Not often, that's why I have no problem pointing it out, even if that's slightly annoying. But you can imagine that it felt kinda odd on my side when asking someone to set the links (with references to the docs explaining how to set them) and seeing them added then in v2, just so see they vanished again in v3 of the same patch. :-/ > I am totally fine enforcing the use of Link: tags if this is what has > been decided, just don't expect everybody to switch to a style rather > than another over a night. I don't. >> If you don't like the approach explained by the documentation, submit a >> patch adjusting the documentation and then we can talk about this. But >> until that is applied please stick to the format explained by the >> documentation. > This is uselessly condescending. I apologize, it wasn't meant that way. I had to many discussions already where people were not setting any links and it seems the topic is slowly hitting a nerve here. Sorry. Ciao, Thorsten
