Re: [GIT PULL] KVM/arm64 fixes for 6.18, take #1

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/14/25 14:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > You will notice that, just like I did with the main pull request, I'm
> > adding message-ids to the tag instead of putting them into the
> > individual patches. It looks rubbish, but I don't have a good
> > alternative, and I'm not prepared to remove provenance information
> > from the stuff I ferry upstream.
> > 
> > I'd welcome any guidance that would make things suck less for people
> > reporting bugs and backporting stuff, despite the "Link: is bad"
> > nonsense. Preferably something that we can adopt across architectures
> > supporting KVM.
> Because you're already unusually meticulous in tracking tags, I'm going to
> say whatever floats your boat.  If you want to add it to each patch, I'm
> certainly not going to be the one to complain, and/or to make your life
> harder, because of something like "Link".
> 
> Personally I think that there's a different between adding something
> mindlessly as a cargo cult, and adding it *unconditionally*.  Link is the
> latter, it's unconditional because it may be needed *later*.  In some cases
> it may not be strictly necessary (for example the tip bot used it to send
> replies, and that is served by notes just fine), but overall I don't get the
> hate either.
> 
> In fact, I'm very adamant about *needing* Link trailers for each patch in
> the RISC-V pull requests, which are the ones I look at most closely since
> the code is still in relative infancy.

FWIW, adding Link to every commit is a hill I'll die on (and Paolo has confirmed
that he doesn't object), it's simply far too valuable.  And as Paolo has mentioned
off-list, I don't think Linus will ever notice, so long as we don't send him
garbage and thus give him cause to see what lies behind the Link.