On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 18.04.22 13:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Mario Limonciello > > <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 4/17/22 07:24, firew4lker wrote: > > > > ... > > > >> Linus Walleij, > >> > >> As this is backported to 5.15.y, 5.16.y, 5.17.y and those all had point > >> releases a bunch of people are hitting it now. If you choose to adopt > >> this patch instead of revert the broken one, you can add to the commit > >> message too: > >> > >> Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1976 > > > > I prefer to explicitly tell that this is a link to a bug report, hence BugLink:. > > But this is just my 2 cents. > > Please use "Link:" as explained by the kernel's documentation in > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst (disclaimer: I recently made this > more explicit, but the concept it old). That's important, as people have > tools that rely on it -- I for example run one to track regressions, but > I might not be the only one running a tool that relies on proper tags. To me it looks like a documentation confusion since Link is what is added automatically by `b4` tool. Having Link from the patch thread (and not always the one with the discussion) as well as link to the issue will be confusing. > And FWIW: I'm all for making this more explicit, but people already use > various different tags (BugLink is just one of them) for that and that > just results in a mess. Nope, it results otherwise. The Link is Link to the thread, which you may find a lot in the kernel history. Making bug report links and links to the patch threads that's what results in a mess. > I proposed consistent tags, but that didn't get > much feedback. Maybe I should try again. Makes me wonder: where does > BugLink come from? Is that something that people are used to from > GitLab, GitHub, or something? It comes from kernel history :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
