Please return trailer-order option
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): YtZZE/6BOR5m86Kq@unreal
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines · Leon Romanovsky
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Do you think that it is acceptable to return that option?
Yes, it will probably come back as "trailer-priority" and preserve the chain-of-custody ordering as discussed on the list. It should make it back in by 0.10 release.
Sounds awesome.
FYI, this option is back as of today. It's still called "trailer-order", so you shouldn't need to change anything. There are some important changes in how it works:
1. we only reorder trailers that are in your own chain-of-custody section (below the last Signed-off-by that isn't yours)
2. we always move your own Signed-off-by to the bottom of your own chain-of-custody section
Please let me know if this new behaviour is working as you would expect it.
-K
Quoted 13 lines · Konstantin Ryabitsev
Quoted 7 lines · Leon Romanovsky
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Do you think that it is acceptable to return that option?
Yes, it will probably come back as "trailer-priority" and preserve the chain-of-custody ordering as discussed on the list. It should make it back in by 0.10 release.
Sounds awesome.
FYI, this option is back as of today. It's still called "trailer-order", so you shouldn't need to change anything. There are some important changes in how it works:
Quoted 6 lines
1. we only reorder trailers that are in your own chain-of-custody section (below the last Signed-off-by that isn't yours)
2. we always move your own Signed-off-by to the bottom of your own chain-of-custody sectionPlease let me know if this new behaviour is working as you would expect it.
Thank you for doing it.
I tried latest b4 with the following config:
[b4]
trailer-order = "Cc,Fixes*,Link*,Suggested*,Reviewed*,Tested*,*"
➜ kernel git:(tmp) ~/src/b4/b4.sh shazam -l -s https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]
Grabbing thread from lore.kernel.org/all/20220901202645.1463552-1-irogers%40google.com/t.mbox.gz Checking for newer revisions on https://lore.kernel.org/all/
Analyzing 2 messages in the thread
Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
---
[PATCH v1] selftests/xsk: Avoid use-after-free on ctx
+ Acked-by: Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>
+ Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
---
NOTE: install dkimpy for DKIM signature verification
---
Total patches: 1
---
Applying: selftests/xsk: Avoid use-after-free on ctx
The end result as an outcome of 1 is:
While I would like to see Link being below Fixes line:
Thanks
Quoted 2 lines
-K
Konstantin Ryabitsev
Acked-by Magnus KarlssonQuoted 27 lines · Leon Romanovsky
I tried latest b4 with the following config:
[b4]
trailer-order = "Cc,Fixes*,Link*,Suggested*,Reviewed*,Tested*,*"➜ kernel git:(tmp)
~/src/b4/b4.shshazam -l -s https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]
Grabbing thread from lore.kernel.org/all/20220901202645.1463552-1-irogers%40google.com/t.mbox.gz Checking for newer revisions on https://lore.kernel.org/all/
Analyzing 2 messages in the thread
Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
---
[PATCH v1] selftests/xsk: Avoid use-after-free on ctx
+ Acked-by: Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>
+ Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
---
NOTE: install dkimpy for DKIM signature verification
---
Total patches: 1
---
Applying: selftests/xsk: Avoid use-after-free on ctxThe end result as an outcome of 1 is:
Fixes 39e940d4abfa ("selftests/xsk: Destroy BPF resources only when ctx refcount drops to 0")Signed-off-by Ian Rogers <[email protected]>Acked-by Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Quoted 6 lines
While I would like to see Link being below Fixes line:
Fixes 39e940d4abfa ("selftests/xsk: Destroy BPF resources only when ctx refcount drops to 0")Signed-off-by Ian Rogers <[email protected]>Acked-by Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Right, this is the intended change in behaviour -- we don't want to touch anything that's above the Signed-off-by that doesn't belong to you. I see why you want to move the Link: line above Ian's SoB (to indicate that it's his message), but I think from the point of view of chain-of-custody it really belongs under it:
This is Ian saying that he's signing off on anything above this trailer. If we move Link: above his signoff, this would indicate that he's also signing off on the contents of that URL, but that would be putting words in his mouth. If we put the Link under it, though, this indicates where *you* got the message, so it really belongs in your own custody section:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
"I got this message at this URL"
"I also collected this Acked-by, which can also be found at that URL"
"I am signing off on anything above this line"
Hope this helps explain the reasoning.
-Konstantin
Quoted 56 lines · Konstantin Ryabitsev
Quoted 27 lines · Leon Romanovsky
I tried latest b4 with the following config:
[b4]
trailer-order = "Cc,Fixes*,Link*,Suggested*,Reviewed*,Tested*,*"➜ kernel git:(tmp)
~/src/b4/b4.shshazam -l -s https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]
Grabbing thread from lore.kernel.org/all/20220901202645.1463552-1-irogers%40google.com/t.mbox.gz Checking for newer revisions on https://lore.kernel.org/all/
Analyzing 2 messages in the thread
Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
---
[PATCH v1] selftests/xsk: Avoid use-after-free on ctx
+ Acked-by: Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>
+ Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
---
NOTE: install dkimpy for DKIM signature verification
---
Total patches: 1
---
Applying: selftests/xsk: Avoid use-after-free on ctxThe end result as an outcome of 1 is:
Fixes 39e940d4abfa ("selftests/xsk: Destroy BPF resources only when ctx refcount drops to 0")Signed-off-by Ian Rogers <[email protected]>Acked-by Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>Quoted 6 lines
While I would like to see Link being below Fixes line:
Fixes 39e940d4abfa ("selftests/xsk: Destroy BPF resources only when ctx refcount drops to 0")Signed-off-by Ian Rogers <[email protected]>Acked-by Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>Right, this is the intended change in behaviour -- we don't want to touch anything that's above the Signed-off-by that doesn't belong to you. I see why you want to move the Link: line above Ian's SoB (to indicate that it's his message), but I think from the point of view of chain-of-custody it really belongs under it:
Fixes 39e940d4abfa ("selftests/xsk: Destroy BPF resources only when ctx refcount drops to 0")Signed-off-by Ian Rogers <[email protected]>This is Ian saying that he's signing off on anything above this trailer. If we move Link: above his signoff, this would indicate that he's also signing off on the contents of that URL, but that would be putting words in his mouth. If we put the Link under it, though, this indicates where *you* got the message, so it really belongs in your own custody section:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]"I got this message at this URL"
Acked-by Magnus Karlsson <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines
"I also collected this Acked-by, which can also be found at that URL"
Signed-off-by Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>"I am signing off on anything above this line"
Hope this helps explain the reasoning.
Yeah, it explains, the thing is that pure chain-of-custody exists only in flows that mostly based on pull request.
In my subsystem case, we fix many of submitted patches (spelling, grammar, coding style and sometimes code itself), because for us the end goal (having fix/patch merged) is more important than process. We don't want to scare casual developers with strict rules, of course, the more experienced submitter, the less tolerant toward his mistakes.
So in my mind, commit message structure is: "Subject, message, Cc, Fixes, Link, various *-off-by".
Thanks
Quoted 2 lines
-Konstantin