Re: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain

From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp>,
	Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	devel@acpica.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:24:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXE2HR1Yd9rfyXp92WaB2k1YQ5wKskN0tZ1HwC5Ti+V3OA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200923153941.GK28545@zn.tnic>

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:39, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I think the question is why we are retaining this Reported-by header
> > to begin with. Even though the early feedback is appreciated,
> > crediting the bot for eternity for a version of the patch that never
> > got merged seems a bit excessive. Also, it may suggest that the bot
> > was involved in reporting an issue that the patch aims to fix but that
> > is not the case.
>
> That is supposed to be explained in [] properly so that there's no
> misreading of why that tag's there.
>
> > The last thing we want is Sasha's bot to jump on patches adding new
> > functionality just because it has a reported-by line.
>
> It should jump on patches which have Fixes: tags. But Sasha's bot is
> nuts regardless. :-)
>
> > So I suggest dropping the Reported-by credit as well as the [] context
> > regarding v1
>
> So I don't mind having a Reported-by: tag with an explanation of what
> it reported. We slap all kinds of tags so having some attribution for
> the work the 0day bot does to catch such errors is reasonable. I presume
> they track this way how "useful" it is, by counting the Reported-by's or
> so, as they suggest one should add a Reported-by in their reports.
>
> And without any attribution what the 0day bot reported, it might decide
> not to report anything next time, I'd venture a guess.
>
> And the same argument can be had for Suggested-by: tags: one could
> decide not to add that tag and the person who's doing the suggesting
> might decide not to suggest anymore.
>
> So I think something like:
>
>  [ Fix a build breakage in an earlier version. ]
> Reported-by: 0day bot
>
> is fine as long as it makes it perfectly clear what Reported-by tag
> is for and as long as ts purpose for being present there is clear, I
> don't see an issue...
>

I don't think it adds much value tbh, but I am not going to obsess
about it either.