Re: [RESEND][PATCH] bug: Exclude non-BUG/WARN exceptions from report_bug()

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Which brings me to my point: maybe we should encourage people to make
> this "for whom the patch tolls" information more obvious and more
> explicit. It wasn't obvious in the first submission (yes, I saw the
> patch then too), and even in this second one I actually initially
> didn't notice this one line in between the commit message and the
> actual patch. Maybe I get too much email, but I bet _that_ is very
> true of others too.

Yeah, a lot of people miss the "comment" line. I try to use it
sparingly, but really that only contributes to it not getting noticed.
;)

> The obvious place to encourage people to do it is in the [PATCH] part
> in the subject, ie something like [PATCH/mm] or similar if you expect
> it to go through Andrew's mm tree, or [PATCH/x86] it you expect the
> x86 maintainers to pick it up. Or [PATCH/linus] if it's something that
> you really expect to bypass all maintainers (why? I'd prefer for that
> to then be explained).

This may be redundant for some cases where the target is already in
the commit subject prefix: "x86/locking: Fixes foo", but I regularly
touch code without super-clear maintainership, or end up in places
where it spans multiple areas (e.g. this patch was a fix for an
x86-tree commit but the fix only touches the generic bug area, whee).

But for non-"obvious" cases, I like this idea; it could help me when
I'm sending to lots of different trees.

> But maybe other potential patch recipients would hate that kind of
> extra mess in the subject line?

My question would be, will the existing automated systems that parse
the "PATCH" subject deal with a non-whitespaced suffix like this?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security