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 E5A7EC433F5 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:27:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231370AbiCCN2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:28:33 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40046 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229944AbiCCN2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:28:32 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0B9C45AC9; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 05:27:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3528F61A74; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BDF0C340ED; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:27:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1646314065; bh=dGIwofzMp743lq/H6G0kmTunNZasKG3kTyo9mb8RtCE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JqQ0xJQfx03q10afTRnX1WtqexTWH7TWB8f+Hq0ExLUtz4/t0JaK3REzp+tVKdGDh 0SRjxMC0zcAqlgyxCvnSDsxx1w20JF3IpnvnlIKt4+pPSUoj9vYi4Zbms5jnRVnB5e vOQVCI9WNzT7riiWbOzRGSL8cFITI3FJ70/YziRelPCrLsQoNj8VC3bst5nX8SVgWK DtGT7VUXPw4nvugRAZTx4O9DpOU17ukuAuPqVMur/ocFQWOij7KKYUiBIgAbulZ6Og PMzHSvI2/qn+6kZw+mEg8RF2HYfsqQ2OVIoPBaT+gRrnC2caWHAVM42tJywGYW/QqR n0rHf5YYMR3mQ== Received: from johan by xi.lan with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1nPlUc-0000EZ-O7; Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:27:43 +0100 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:27:42 +0100 From: Johan Hovold To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Andy Shevchenko , 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> <20220303095432.GB9912@kili> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220303095432.GB9912@kili> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:54:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:51:33AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:16:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > 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. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you re-read Mathews description > > above, it still seems to me like the issue is that the bots are trying > > to claim credit for finding things that haven't been merged yet. > > > > Your suggestion is to document that the bots should be ignored. My > > suggestion is to fix the bots. > > Originally the kbuild bot used to not have that notice but adding it > meant that kbuild bot got a lot more visibility. The truth is that > managers love metrics and it helps people get paid. > > The whole point of kbuild-bot was to search the lists and test code > before it gets merged. If they just waited and tested linux-next they > would get their reported by tags because most trees don't rebase. But > we're punishing them for being better at their job. It's a perverse > incentive. I hear you. But I also get Matthew's and Andy's point about it not being quite right to give an automatic test program Reported-by credit for finding, say, an unused variable in a not yet merged patch. And perhaps even more so since real reviewers often get no credit at all (but perhaps a mention in a cover letter). > We should create a new tag for finding bugs during review. Yeah, I guess your perverse incentive argument applies equally to human reviewers even if I'm also reluctant to going down this path. Johan