From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE382CA0 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A013200B8B; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 04:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Dec 2021 04:02:31 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kroah.com; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=44i3cKj4C+IU/gdPgbxbEeXUV0f fKrBGDVKNTA7fXGU=; b=fQq+TdZyLeZWGjCMaMii6PIN7RrDc30nqQsgB5tWBNL fpDqSfJKd+Okd3LTrU6MK8wUUZEaDFy0FwahzdCh0mRq/H4+cO90OcdDfK2xNXTs tfD0g4LK/WwD35LZhevVSuVhjV92PCcYPxLUs87EbALF7CJT5ZiuK8iVHhpfB7Hr KrF53fGVu/M19YjZNwbPASbsBVQRRoLj/cMfqmmxkdwEVkfPmJ+jrwb0dUIXUwTV cM02cxxJduXQcRKbuALqIkkoUUERdcLWh0kfXwLFSMSxu5Jn4BtVgWK+q3psMYwp 11RID9Vc7NejYnPbyX7mJ32SPXFyRoRdEJ1DLwbo5nw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=44i3cK j4C+IU/gdPgbxbEeXUV0ffKrBGDVKNTA7fXGU=; b=SRy2OUTZ9xXAQvFTGozkX3 4/qOGoeBo4sCDaltwnu+qPEYtAbuAEgDeIuGo38mbc78a6VJirTnTnDclonm5bE9 5ySnVjnlKEQKeGmhk4gcpbTeCF+uoFcnLo2OpHrkCgvI2hGtn3nvqlD0aUu6gWDX K+0whu3AJ6LczA0hOdCSmYEVyzlHN7EBTtNgqnkKbH6REsex1XRsKhFGKoLFTfEU 0f44hIJGbujXzQcoIjdpnmFfh/32X0VtC/i7VJ+fzCkAr8dZZEo5LDfz1Q/k8sOx 1HA6RtRLmUcI4Jix8SQwt2HP66bFez3iN73o/s0HNgwb5hTl7JzKXrUOXdY2lCCg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddruddthedguddvkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttd ertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefirhgvghcumffjuceoghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrdgtohhm qeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuleeltdehkeeltefhleduuddvhfffuedvffduveeghe ekgeeiffevheegfeetgfenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhs thgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhrvghgsehkrhhorg hhrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 04:02:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:02:27 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: "regressions@lists.linux.dev" Subject: Re: [Bug 215117] New: ucsi_acpi: kernel NULL pointer dereference #forregzbot Message-ID: References: <3de36d9f-0579-f442-2bb2-b4b21ee990a2@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3de36d9f-0579-f442-2bb2-b4b21ee990a2@leemhuis.info> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 09:37:55AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > My biggest problem is: many developers don't place the Link: tags. I > obviously expected that up to a point. But what I didn't expect: so much > opposition to place them, because quite a few developers think they are > reserved for maintainers, as they are only meant for linking to the > submission of the applied patch; a few also think others tags should be > needed for linking to bugs. Hah, I can't even get developers to add a Fixes: or a Cc: stable tag, trying to get them to add a Link: tag to a lore reference is going to be an uphill battle. Right now, the best thing we have is the git hook that auto-adds the Link: tag that points to the lore thread where the patch came from. Maintainers don't have the energy or time to add anything other than that, so I think you just might have to rely on Fixes: for a while. > My proposed "introduce the commit message tags 'Reported:' and > 'Posted:'" patch likely would have helped here, but didn't get any > traction :-/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c6724c7fb534a46e095e6aef13d996ed9589e578.1639042966.git.linux@leemhuis.info/ > > Maybe that was partly due to the stupid mixup in the subject of the > cover letter, but whatever. So I guess I'll drop the bold idea. I > consider proposing to create "Reported: " while leaving ambiguous > Link: alone, which will help my case. Note sure if I also should propose > to drop "Reported-by" at the same time, which makes things easier for > developers, as that tag can only be set after asking the reporter. Nah, I add "Reported-by:" all the time without asking for explicit permission, relying on the public email instead. If there was some way to automate the Reported: tag, maybe it could be used, but again, that's a lot of manual work to do, which is going to be a hard sell. thanks, greg k-h