From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932891AbeCEFwa (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2018 00:52:30 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:47692 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932662AbeCEFw3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2018 00:52:29 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 66E4A6022C Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Richard Weinberger , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] bug: Exclude non-BUG/WARN exceptions from report_bug() References: <20180301225934.GA34350@beast> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 07:52:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:23:27 -0800") Message-ID: <87a7vn9ii0.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> My question would be, will the existing automated systems that parse >> the "PATCH" subject deal with a non-whitespaced suffix like this? > > Hmm. Maybe just space them out. That's what networking already does, > ie you'll see things like > > [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] patch description here > > [PATCH net] some-patch-description > > in subject lines. Maybe we can just encourage that format in general. > > And yes, I agree, for when the targets are obvious, this clearly isn't > needed. And often they are. > > So this would still likely be the exception rather than the rule, but > it would be a lot more obvious than hiding a one-liner commentary deep > in the middle of the email. At least for me (as the wireless-drivers maintainer) this would be a major improvement as it's not always clear to which to tree a patch should be applied and it would save unnecessary ping pong when I need to ask which tree is the patch going to. I think few times I have even accidentally applied a patch which Dave has already applied to the net tree because of the target tree was not clearly marked. So at least I would very much welcome having this documented somewhere in Documentation so that I can start convincing people to use it more :) -- Kalle Valo