Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc_workqueue call

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:42:33PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
> >>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
> >>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
> >>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
> >>
> >> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
> >> series.
> >>
> > Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?
> 
> If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do
> we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm
> folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that.

I've always lobied for a Fixes-from: tag, but the kbuild-bot tells
everyone to add a Reported-by: tag.  But then a lot of people are like
Reported-by doesn't make sense.  And other people are like Reported-by
is fine, what's wrong with it?

regards,
dan carpenter