Re: [GIT PULL] more printk for 6.15

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 at 12:43, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I would also argue that it's good for the actual ack, because it gives you
> a link back to email were it was likely acked, in case you want to confirm
> it was acked.

Let's make the rule that you can have your useless Link: tags for the
pointless patch source if you want.

IF YOU ALSO PUT THE ACTUALLY USEFUL LINKS IN THERE!

In other words - don't make me go look at the patch submission and be
disappointed.

Make the *first* link be something useful, like the *reason* for the
patch in the first place.

Then you can add your pointless noise afterwards.

Because no, "it has an actual ack" is not a good reason. Nobody cares
about the ack. The *reason* people look at the link is because
something went wrong, and you want some serious explanation for why
the patch exists.

Seeing extra "Acks" is not a reason.

           Linus

             Linus