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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8904DC2D0A8 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCD621D41 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:39:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="bq4WYVnd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726620AbgIWPjv (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:39:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44210 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726504AbgIWPjv (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:39:51 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:11c2::b:1457]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 143DFC0613CE; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f0d130017aaf728a0fb4ec3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0d:1300:17aa:f728:a0fb:4ec3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id AE2171EC0409; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:39:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1600875587; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=w4olCSb8jT2RNv8xHUN26fhLNxYdkyB61t9MEo7mTLE=; b=bq4WYVndAySAoDrcXMKE2j/v4xOD2eIjmidsATkH23MZkCe6wd2xyNQlmxzWR5LCLSl9D2 7+gK6lYDLVIOlVELUR2Kx24fmSYSDQkLBiJhOWpiel/I6b7WF2aS4IakPs4v0eqXCO8eRf nTXxR4HWsYWYb1zVhkQi2nKk2Pw4EfY= Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:39:41 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Punit Agrawal , Smita Koralahalli , X86 ML , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi , ACPI Devel Maling List , devel@acpica.org, Tony Luck , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Yazen Ghannam Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cper, apei, mce: Pass x86 CPER through the MCA handling chain Message-ID: <20200923153941.GK28545@zn.tnic> References: <20200904140444.161291-1-Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com> <87wo0kiz6y.fsf@kokedama.swc.toshiba.co.jp> <20200923140512.GJ28545@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org 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... -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette