Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf vendor events: Update CascadelakeX events to v1.08

[Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 03:05:27PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Things like b4 help with this and probably have to take into account
> attachments as well, that is why I'm adding Konstantin to the Cc: list
> of this message.
> 
> Konstantin, is this case covered? I.e. patches that get botched and then
> require attachments to be sent to then gets processed?

Hmm... it's complicated. The trouble with handling corner-cases is 
unexpected ways this can affect other mail. For example, what do we do 
when we see a patch in the body, but also a patch as an attachment -- 
should the attachment win, or did the developer mean something entirely 
different ("this is the fixed patch -- I attached the previous version 
for your reference").

I am working on a service that will automatically "explode" pull 
requests into patch series, so this may help work around this particular 
issue. For example, a developer would send a pull-request to the list 
and cc "exploderbot@kernel.org" (or someone else can follow up with a cc 
to that address). When the bot sees the cc, it will automatically 
convert the pull request into patch series and send it to the same 
recipients as on the original pull request.

This should help avoid the problem of terrible mail relays and nasty 
mail clients.

B4 can already do most of that (see "b4 pr --explode"), so adding the 
remaining bits should be easy enough. If this functionality is 
interesting to you, I would be happy to have early beta testers.

-K