Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fix for 6.17-rc5

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 9/5/25 1:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 12:04, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO it's better to have a Link and it _potentially_ being useful than
>> not to have it and then need to search around for it.
> 
> No. Really.
> 
> The issue is "potentially - but very likely not - useful" vs "I HIT
> THIS TEN+ TIMES EVERY SINGLE F%^& RELEASE".
> 
> There is just no comparison.  I have literally *never* found the
> original submission email to be useful, and I'm tired of the
> "potentially useful" argument that has nothing to back it up with.
> 
> It's literally magical thinking of "in some alternate universe, pigs
> can fly, and that link might be useful"

Then let's please define the rules. I always add a bug report in as a
Link tag, if it exists. I think we agree that's a good thing, because it
shows the origin of the patch and what it's supposed to fix.

If someone sends me a patch which may be a bug or a feature, add the
link IFF discussion actually happened there. Useful discussion,
presumably? Because what typically ends up happening is that someone
sends a series, and there's discussion, and then V2 is posted. Repeat
until good. When Vn is applied, there's zero discussion. But a link to
Vn is useful in that it helps you find Vn-1 and so forth, as it leads to
the cover letter. We can put the cover letter link in there, but that's
not useful in an big series, as it'd be in all the patches. Create
temporary branch, apply series, merge into branch where it belongs and
include the Link to the cover letter? Or the cover letter itself?

And probably more?

-- 
Jens Axboe