linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	mie@igel.co.jp
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 16:50:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgAk3NEJ2PHtb0jXzCUOGytiHLq=rzjkFKfpiuH-SROgA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnrxTMVRtDnGA/EK@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:12 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, as someone who is frequently tracking down and
> reporting issues, a link to the mailing list post in the commit message
> makes it much easier to get these reports into the right hands, as the
> original posting is going to have all relevant parties in one location
> and it will usually have all the context necessary to triage the
> problem.

Honestly, I think such a thing would be trivial to automate with
something like just a patch-id lookup, rather than a "Link:".

And such a lookup model ("where was this patch posted") would work for
<i>any</i> patch (and often also find previous unmodified versions of
it when it has been posted multiple times).

I suspect that most of the building blocks of such automation
effectively already exists, since I think the lore infrastructure
already integrates with patchwork, and patchwork already has a "look
up by patch id".

Wouldn't it be cool if you had some webby interface to just go from
commit SHA1 to patch ID to a lore.kernel.org lookup of where said
patch was done?

Of course, I personally tend to just search by the commit contents
instead, which works just about as well. If the first line of the
commit isn't very unique, add a "f:author" to the search.

IOW, I really don't find much value in the "Link to original
submission", because that thing is *already* trivial to find, and the
lore search is actually better in many ways (it also tends to find
people *reporting* that commit, which is often what you really want -
the reason you're doing the search is that there's something going on
with it).

My argument here really is that "find where this commit was posted" is

 (a) not generally the most interesting thing

 (b) doesn't even need that "Link:" line.

but what *is* interesting, and where the "Link:" line is very useful,
is finding where the original problem that *caused* that patch to be
posted in the first place.

Yes, obviously you can find that original problem by searching too if
the commit message has enough other information.

For example, if there is an oops quoted in the commit message, I have
personally searched for parts of that kind of information to find the
original report and discussion.

So that whole "searching is often an option" is true for pretty much
_any_ Link:, but I think that for the whole "original submission" it's
so mindless and can be automated that it really doesn't add much real
value at all.

                Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-10 23:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-10 12:23 [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-05-10 18:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-05-10 23:12   ` Nathan Chancellor
2022-05-10 23:50     ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2022-05-11  7:13       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-05-11 12:51       ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2022-05-11 13:40         ` Michael Ellerman
2022-05-11 16:31           ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2022-05-12  2:07             ` Theodore Ts'o
2022-05-11 17:35       ` Dave Taht
2022-05-11  6:22   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-05-11 10:12   ` Michael Ellerman
2022-05-11 16:20     ` Linus Torvalds
2022-05-12 13:30       ` Michael Ellerman
2022-05-12 17:10         ` Linus Torvalds
2022-05-12 17:19           ` Linus Torvalds
2022-05-13 14:14             ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-05-13 17:00               ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-05-16  9:03           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-05-11 12:24   ` Jörg Rödel
2022-05-13 12:16     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-05-10 18:31 ` pr-tracker-bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHk-=wgAk3NEJ2PHtb0jXzCUOGytiHLq=rzjkFKfpiuH-SROgA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=konstantin@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mie@igel.co.jp \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).