From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759573AbZE1TwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 15:52:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755039AbZE1TwP (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 15:52:15 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:44351 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754624AbZE1TwO (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 15:52:14 -0400 Message-ID: <4A1EEB45.5010404@garzik.org> Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:51:33 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel , Greg KH , Jens Axboe , Chris Wright , kurt.hackel@oracle.com, Andrew Morton , Ky Srinivasan , Beulich , Avi Kivity , Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/17] xen: disable MSI References: <1243409850-21577-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <1243409850-21577-18-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090527211828.GA6166@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.5 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> hm, i have to concur. Too often it ends up splitting attention away >> from the title of the commit. I do reject (or fix up) bad impact >> lines - will stop doing them altogether if you think there's a net >> downside to them ... > > I actually think that if there is a good reason for them, they can stay. > > Just don't make it one of those "every commit that goes through me has to > have one". > > Pu another way: if they actually add value in highlighting the commits > that _should_ stand out, then hey, by all means, keep such ones. I would > not at all object if it was an issue of > > [ Impact: fix bugzilla entry 455123 ] > > or > > [ Impact: fix user-triggerable oops ] Ideally "Impact" is pointless if you are otherwise writing a clear, concise commit description. "Fixes user-triggerable oops" on a line by itself is clear enough, and is how I've been writing descriptions for a while. People with the urge to add "Impact:" to every commit wind up either being redundant, or for small patches, having the entire ex-Subject commit description be "Impact: blah blah blah" If IOW, if the impact is not already clear, you're doing something wrong, and "Impact" is not necessarily going to fix that. Jeff