From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15815C433EF for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 18:17:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236074AbiAaSRt (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:17:49 -0500 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:33534 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234205AbiAaSRs (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:17:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1643653068; x=1675189068; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=mmbfN7EWjtVJlPPYulfzzNG3cWkywCNdf+H70EZzxYE=; b=jQsb0qSF4KAfC33uA3kLHwheblBJ55BQcNaNjlXIGgRBDPY9ePDxhLRP 3EKR5fyKx2xMBIurNA8fF68MPuBZPadFTodDLy6opdItIxoqWSVWswItU 07b8qKP8vnP9potDv/OA6zIUgnF0+1/Ir2jZytnGdd5/DTt7/vLInrWbk nMkRJKIJgNMr2b433GrXs+7PSObe69Wrf7mWeH2+j7oq35eECUsq3u3iK rX1lr8TZOByFRM4xBOX8wmNs/BBqNGf0YGPfdxVkyugnX+htJg1IzEV14 udHRcTCW0wuAZaCx6cov56YsmfwwFDB0mnNItO3NKusybgSxWsen+bhTI g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10244"; a="228183146" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,331,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="228183146" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2022 10:17:48 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,331,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="630109993" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.61]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2022 10:17:46 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nEbEJ-00Gz3U-51; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:16:43 +0200 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:16:42 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Johan Hovold Cc: Matthew Wilcox , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Eckert Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] docs: process: submitting-patches: Clarify the Reported-by usage Message-ID: References: <20220127155334.47154-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <87o83xrwk9.fsf@meer.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > I think this misunderstands the problem that Andy is trying to fix. > > > > > > > > The situation: I write a patch. I post it for review. A bot does > > > > something and finds a bug (could be compile-error, could be boot > > > > problem). That bot sends a bug report with a suggestion to add > > > > Reported-by:. That suggestion is inappropriate because the bug never > > > > made it upstream, so it looks like the bot reported the "problem" > > > > that the patch "fixes". > > > > > > > > It's not unique to "new feature" patches. If I'm fixing a bug and > > > > my fix also contains a bug spotted by a bot, adding Reported-by > > > > makes it look like the bot spotted the original bug, rather than > > > > spotting a bug in the fix. > > > > > > > > The best thing to do in this case is nothing. Do not credit the bot. > > > > Maybe add a Checked-by:, but that would be a new trailer and I really > > > > don't think we need a new kind of trailer to get wrong. > > > > > > It seems like the only way to fix this is to fix the bots. Adding more > > > documentation is unlikely to help in this case. > > > > Links to the documentation at least may clarify the point in case of a > > review. > > Sure. > > > > Can't we file a bug to whoever is running the bots (Intel?) and ask them > > > to remove the suggestion to add a Reported-by when the bot is testing a > > > patch (as opposed to mainline or even -next)? > > > > The granularity here is not a repo. It's a code itself and in some cases > > it might be easy to distinguish new feature from the code modifications, > > but when code is already there and feature is just an extension of the > > existing file(s), it's hard to tell. And it might be true or not. > > Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you and Matthew > are talking about different things after all. I'm talking about your suggestion to fix the bots. It's not easy. The problem is the same as Matthew explained. > But for Matthew's issue, the case where the bots are testing posted > patches ("Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:) should be > easy to fix by simply dropping or rephrasing the "kindly add following > tag as appropriate" suggestion. Yes, but this is not "fixing the bots", it falls into category "working around" them, because even for a clear bug report the suggestion can be stronger. And doing that properly without kinda AI not easy. > When testing merged code, it may be harder to tell whether the branch in > question can be rebased or not (and an incremental fix with a > reported-by tag is warranted). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko