From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 14:41:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC, sb_edac: remove redundant update of tad_base Message-Id: <20190509144113.GB17053@zn.tnic> List-Id: References: <20190508224201.27120-1-colin.king@canonical.com> <20190509141313.GA17053@zn.tnic> <55f8efee-a02c-1574-42fa-35e1d3df14f7@canonical.com> In-Reply-To: <55f8efee-a02c-1574-42fa-35e1d3df14f7@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Colin Ian King Cc: Tony Luck , Qiuxu Zhuo , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , James Morse , linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 03:29:42PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote: > These are the Coverity static analysis warning/error message > classifications. Tagging them should be useful for several reasons: > > 1. We can classify the types of issues being fixed > 2. We can see how many issues are being found/fixed with the use of > static analysis tools like Coverity Who's "We"? > 3. It provides some context on how these bugs were being found. I figured as much but I have more questions: * you say "tools like Coverity" but the name Coverity is in the tag. So another tool would want to add its own tag. Which begs the second question: * has it ever been discussed and/or agreed upon all those "tools" tags? Because we remove internal tags which have no bearing on the upstream kernel. When I see that tag, how can I find out what it means? Can I run coverity myself? Lemme dig another one: Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch") Where do I look up that ID? And so on... Bottom line of what I'm trying to say is, those tags better be useful to the general kernel audience - that means, they should be documented so that people can look them up - or better not be in commit messages at all. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.