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 B25E5C4332F for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:17:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229513AbiJLPR4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:17:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42726 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229691AbiJLPRx (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:17:53 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D579D18C9; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 08:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B28A1F381; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:17:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1665587864; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YUQdCV8qiu2z5cZbzxSEaEkk7or+cErTkTgKM6DkvSE=; b=TQBH6wZEfg2J4/JXfuz2CUfAw1+Wpt5z7yW90MCznNrPc1PrIJijJ1VCqid5Cvm+eI60qQ 5WWug0YABffQ/hGUHPcDgZhagmRKLa90pB0Wew+DeotunOyVKjqfwfB6eOJem5VKN1lmll uCEHtshMka44Sj3n5sJJu1jBIKwEHAQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1665587864; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YUQdCV8qiu2z5cZbzxSEaEkk7or+cErTkTgKM6DkvSE=; b=ZGqGu7Q+iBgrLcvuZ+tMwCZGjy+Qc/1rmPnZpoX8IMOOWToDcLWEdjt38F6XYNAO2Xee72 Q3pu8bOFCyF3fiDw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1219F13ACD; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:17:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 78FiAZjaRmM4PAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:17:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (brahms.olymp [local]) by brahms.olymp (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id a8723c1a; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:18:39 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lu=EDs?= Henriques To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix BUG_ON() when directory entry has invalid rec_len Message-ID: References: <20221010142035.2051-1-lhenriques@suse.de> <20221012131330.32456-1-lhenriques@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:21:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Luís Henriques wrote: > > Grr, looks like I accidentally reused a 'git send-email' from shell > > history which had a '--in-reply-to' in it. Please ignore and sorry about > > that. I've just resent a new email. > > No worries! The --in-reply-to wasn't actually a problem, since b4 > generally will do the right thing (and sometimes humans prefer the > in-reply-to since they can more easily see the patch that it is > replacing/obsoleting). > > b4 can sometimes get confused when a patch series gets split, and both > parts of the patch series are in a reply-to mail thread to the > original patch series, since if it can't use the -vn+1 hueristic or > the "subject line has stayed the same but has a newer date" hueristic, > it falls back to "latest patch in the mail thread". So if there are > two "valid" patches or patch series in an e-mail thread, b4 -c > (--check-newer-revisions) can get confused. But even in that case, > that it's more a minor annoyance than anything else. > > So in the future, don't feel that you need to resend a patch if > there's an incorrect/older --in-reply-to; it's not a big deal. Great, I haven't yet included b4 in my workflow so, to be honest, I didn't really thought about that tool being confused. What really made me resend the patch was that I used the *wrong message-ID in the "--in-reply-to"! And that thread already had a v2 patch, which would could easily confuse humans. Hopefully, b4 won't be confused by that either. Cheers, -- Luís