On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Bruce Fields <bfie...@fieldses.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 08:33:27AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> Thanks for the explanation, Dmitry. I've added the tag to the patch in >> my tree. It should show up in linux-next soon. >> >> I still find it a little misleading to say that syzbot reported a bug >> when it actually found a bug inside an earlier version of the patch, but >> I'll just learn to get over it. > > The usual tag for someone that found a bug in an earlier version of a > patch would be Reviewed-by:. Is there any reason we can't use that > here? The "syzbot+..." email should be enough on its own, I can't see a > reason why their scripts would need to require a particular tag. Or > maybe we could use Tested-by:, or some other tag made up for this case? > > I do worry that someone who sees "Reported-by:..." might for example > mistakenly assume that it would help to backport that patch if they see > a similar-looking oops.
I see. It may also be picked by scripts that detects patches that need to be backported to stable because of the "Reported-by: syzbot" tag. This is somewhat unfortunate. There is no problem parsing another tag on syzbot side. Does Tested-by look good to you? If it found a bug in the patch and then it was fixed, Tested-by looks reasonable. And we also detect Reported-and-tested-by already because that's what syzbot suggests after it tested a proposed fix for a bug. I am somewhat concerned how to spread this information across all kernel developers. There is effectively no way to do this. We can't expect people to read docs, they generally don't. I guess I just document this at "See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information" and then we can point other people there if/when this concern pops up again.
