Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1031127557137900840==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ye Xiaolong To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for GCC 4.4 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:32:04 +0800 Message-ID: <20170929103204.GA29800@yexl-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20170929080128.eygnwju6rbegs3lh@gmail.com> List-Id: --===============1031127557137900840== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 09/29, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:53:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >> > > >> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot >> > > Fixes: f5caf621ee35 ("x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for C= lang") >> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf >> > = >> > Side note: it's not like I personally need the credit, but in general >> > I really want people to pick up on who debugged the code and pointed >> > to the solution. That's often more of the work than the fix itself. >> > = >> > The kernel test robot report looked to be ignored as a "gcc-4.4 is too >> > old to worry about" thing. People who then step up and analyze the >> > problem are rare as it is. They need to be credited in the commit >> > logs. >> > = >> > We don't have any fixed format for that, but it's pretty free-form. So >> > we have tags like >> > = >> > Root-caused-by: >> > Diagnosed-by: >> > Analyzed-by: >> > Debugged-by: >> > Bisected-by: >> > Fix-suggested-by: >> > = >> > etc for giving credit to people who figured out some part of a bug >> > (and, having grepped for this, we also a _shitload_ of miss-spellings >> > of various things ;) >> = >> Indeed, credit is important and I try to give it where it's due. Sorry >> for the snub! I anoint you with: >> = >> Debugged-by: Linus Torvalds > >When applying the fix I went with: > > Diagnosed-by: Linus Torvalds > >Because I think 'diagnosing' a bug is a higher category, which implies deb= ugging. = > >( Sometimes we refer to 'debugging a bug' as the reporter adding printks o= n = > request and printing out key state that helps understand the bug. It doe= s not = > necessarily imply root-causing the bug. ) > >Also note that I added a "Reported-and-Bisected-by:" tag for the ktest rob= ot, to = >further credit the fact that in addition to reporting a kernel crash, a sp= ecific = >commit was bisected to as well. > >I'll wait for another round of ktest robot testing to make sure the crash = is = >indeed fixed. The panic is gone with the fix patch for 4 times test. Tested-by: Ye Xiaolong Thanks, Xiaolong > >Thanks, > > Ingo --===============1031127557137900840==--