Re: [PATCH] IB/cma: Fix reversed test

From: Majd Dibbiny
Date: Sat Jan 28 2017 - 08:02:26 EST



> On Jan 28, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Majd Dibbiny <majd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
Please ignore the previous email.
It was part of an internal discussion..
> We have message sniffer that checks for unwanted prints after each test..
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 28, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 07:05:52PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>>> Do you think this patch needs "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags?
>>>
>>> It does not.
>>
>> We always should have fixes tags.
>>
>> When I'm reviewing, I try to look up the patch which introduced the bug
>> so I can figure out what the intent was. Having a Fixes tag speeds up
>> my work.
>>
>> Looking at how the bug was introduced sometimes helps to prevent bugs
>> from recurring in the future. For example, I've seen several bugs
>> introduced because the right people weren't on the CC to review it. For
>> this particular bug it feels like probably this bug could have been
>> detected with more testing. I doubt it would have made it into a
>> released kernel.
>>
>> Also it let's you CC the original authors and hopefully they can Ack it.
>>
>> regards,
>> dan carpenter
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html