On 18.04.22 16:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. Since some time now, yes, but the "Link:" tags are way older and used to link to all sorts of places that are relevant. > Having Link from the patch thread > (and not always the one with the discussion) as well as link to the > issue will be confusing. Yup, but that's how it is for years already (and in the muscle memory of some -- that's why I might make sense to teach b4 to set something else, but that's a different story). Linus himself does it like that. Recent commits showing that are for example 901c7280ca0d or 0313bc278dac. And for links bug trackers, too, as 80d47f5de5e3 or 14e3e989f6a5 show. >> 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. Yeah, but we are in that mess already and people inventing different tags; some of the DRM people for example use(d?) "References", but there were others iirc. >> 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 :-) Okay, thx, had just been wondering if people are used to it from some platform. Ciao, Thorsten
