From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751947Ab2JDSXs (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:23:48 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44527 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752476Ab2JDSXh (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:23:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net> To: peter.senna@gmail.com Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, mlindner@marvell.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20121004074442.180d8f01@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Peter Senna Tschudin Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200 > I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are > asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch > makes sense. Can you please help me on that? Stop being so dense. We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed. Does it potentially cause an OOPS? Bad reference counting and thus potential leaks or early frees? You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug being fixed. We need that information. Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might cause. It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx, bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:23:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code Message-Id: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: <20121004074442.180d8f01@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: peter.senna@gmail.com Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, mlindner@marvell.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Peter Senna Tschudin Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200 > I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are > asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch > makes sense. Can you please help me on that? Stop being so dense. We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed. Does it potentially cause an OOPS? Bad reference counting and thus potential leaks or early frees? You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug being fixed. We need that information. Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might cause. It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx, bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis.