Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 6 May 2026 18:08:45 +0100 | | From | Julian Braha <> | | Subject | kconfirm: patch reporting guidelines? |
| |
Hi Greg,
*Question 1: should I acknowledge the kconfirm tool in my patches?
I've received a wide range of feedback as I've been submitting patches from kconfirm findings. For example, Lorenzo thanked me for acknowledging the tool when submitting a patch: https://lore.kernel.org/all/bfdfdb05-77e2-455d-b68d-9da3fd9d1c0d@lucifer.local/
and on the other hand, Alexander asked me not to refer to the tool until it is moved into the tree: https://lore.kernel.org/all/3ec20142-09d1-436f-a623-21a2440ef7f0-agordeev@linux.ibm.com/
*Question 2: do bugs in kconfig deserve a Fixes tag?
I've found a few instances of dead default statements, which should not be dead. Fortunately, these just involve the kunit tests. Nothing crazy.
I previously sent out this patch for powerpc, which has passed 2 reviewers and 1 tester, and none of them have objected to the Fixes tag: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260405161545.161006-1-julianbraha@gmail.com/
and on the other hand, Alexander says that this is "no real issue" and doesn't deserve a Fixes tag: https://lore.kernel.org/all/3ec20142-09d1-436f-a623-21a2440ef7f0-agordeev@linux.ibm.com/
- Julian Braha
|  |