Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch

Dan Williams
2020-12-09T17:46:16Z

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:31 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:54:30AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 10:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> > > > > "Corrected-by"?
> > > >
> > > > Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think we should give any credit for improvements or enhancements,
> > > only for fixes.
> >
> > Hey Dan.
> >
> > I do. If a patch isn't comprehensive and a reviewer notices some
> > missing coverage or algorithmic performance enhancement, I think that
> > should be noted.
> >
> > > Complaining about style is its own reward.
> >
> > <chuckle, maybe so. I view it more like coaching...>
> >
> > I believe I've said multiple times that style changes shouldn't require
> > additional commentary added to a patch.
> >
> > I'm not making any suggestion to comment for style, only logic or defect
> > reduction/improvements as described above.
>
> How about we make the standard, "Would this fix be backported to stable?"
>
> >
> > > Having to redo a patch is already a huge headache. Normally, I already
> > > considered the reviewer's prefered style and decided I didn't like it.
> >
> > Example please. We both seem to prefer consistent style.
> >
>
> For example, if you have a signedness bugs:
>
> ret = frob(unsigned_long_size);
> - if (ret < unsigned_long_size)
> + if (ret < 0 || ret < unsigned_long_size)
> vs:
> + if (ret < (int)unsigned_long_size)
> goto whatever;
>
> To me, whoever fixes the bug gets to choose their prefered style but
> maybe some reviewers have strong feelings one way or the other.
>
> > > Then to make me redo the patch in an ugly style and say thank you on
> > > top of that??? Forget about it.
> >
> > Not a thing I've asked for.
> >
> > > Plus, as a reviewer I hate reviewing patches over and over.
> >
> > interdiff could be improved.
> >
> > > I've argued for years that we should have a Fixes-from: tag. The zero
> > > day bot is already encouraging people to add Reported-by tags for this
> > > and a lot of people do.
> >
> > It's still a question of what fixes means in any context.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=%27fixes-from%3A%27%20carpenter%20site%3Alore.kernel.org
> > gives:
> > It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search
> >
>
> No, I mean people add Reported-by tags for fixes to the original commit
> like in commit f026d8ca2904 ("igc: add support to eeprom, registers and
> link self-tests").

For after the fact post-processing of tags to generate summary
reports, is there a significant difference between Reported-by for
"original commit motivation" and Reported-by for "follow-on fixups"?
Especially since this practice of Reported-by for fixups is already
deployed in the tree (at least kbuild-robot credit reports and my
subsystems operate this way).

If the fix is a slightly late and needs to come as a follow-on patch
the tag will be Reported-by on that fix. I fail to perceive a benefit
in augmenting the tag to indicate the resolution of the race condition
of the commit making it upstream.