Re: [PATCH] gpio: Request interrupts after IRQ is initialized

From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	firew4lker <firew4lker@gmail.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@collabora.com>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Basavaraj Natikar <Basavaraj.Natikar@amd.com>,
	Richard.Gong@amd.com, Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Request interrupts after IRQ is initialized
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 17:17:55 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd1VKeGx2EJnKnSBf-DvnPPajDNs=+kQ1f6j5JU8hNLMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49dceaa1-7e8a-671a-0601-2ee92a5d3818@leemhuis.info>

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Thorsten Leemhuis
<regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
>
> On 18.04.22 13:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:34 AM Mario Limonciello
> > <mario.limonciello@amd.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/17/22 07:24, firew4lker wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> Linus Walleij,
> >>
> >> As this is backported to 5.15.y, 5.16.y, 5.17.y and those all had point
> >> releases a bunch of people are hitting it now.  If you choose to adopt
> >> this patch instead of revert the broken one, you can add to the commit
> >> message too:
> >>
> >> Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1976
> >
> > I prefer to explicitly tell that this is a link to a bug report, hence BugLink:.
> > But this is just my 2 cents.
>
> Please use "Link:" as explained by the kernel's documentation in
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst (disclaimer: I recently made this
> more explicit, but the concept it old). That's important, as people have
> tools that rely on it -- I for example run one to track regressions, but
> I might not be the only one running a tool that relies on proper tags.

To me it looks like a documentation confusion since Link is what is
added automatically by `b4` tool. Having Link from the patch thread
(and not always the one with the discussion) as well as link to the
issue will be confusing.

> And FWIW: I'm all for making this more explicit, but people already use
> various different tags (BugLink is just one of them) for that and that
> just results in a mess.

Nope, it results otherwise. The Link is Link to the thread, which you
may find a lot in the kernel history. Making bug report links and
links to the patch threads that's what results in a mess.

> I proposed consistent tags, but that didn't get
> much feedback. Maybe I should try again. Makes me wonder: where does
> BugLink come from? Is that something that people are used to from
> GitLab, GitHub, or something?

It comes from kernel history :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko