From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754621Ab2LGX2d (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:28:33 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:43122 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751818Ab2LGX2c (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:28:32 -0500 Message-ID: <50C27B90.40901@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:28:16 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cong Ding CC: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch/x86/tools/gen-insn-attr-x86.awk: remove duplicate const References: <1354920151-4461-1-git-send-email-dinggnu@gmail.com> <3c1e54bc-31ec-4a38-b6d3-58b25760f9cb@email.android.com> <20121207224949.GA6179@gmail.com> <50C27410.7050101@zytor.com> <20121207230302.GB6179@gmail.com> <50C27665.4090206@zytor.com> <20121207231729.GC6179@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121207231729.GC6179@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/07/2012 03:17 PM, Cong Ding wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:06:13PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 12/07/2012 03:03 PM, Cong Ding wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:56:16PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2012 02:49 PM, Cong Ding wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>>>> Patch description please? >>>>> there are 2 consts in the definition of one variable >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please put in an actual patch description. The first line (subject >>>> line) is a title; the patch should make sense without it. >>> sorry for that. so like this is fine? >>> >> >> Well, except that typically you should explain which variable it is. >> Yes, it is obvious if you look at the patch, but you're making the >> reader spend a few more moments than necessary. >> >> Also, you should explain what the harm is -- if it breaks anything >> or is just a cosmetic issue. > sorry again for lacking of experience... > and I missed another same error, so send version 2. > And one final complaint (I'll fix this one, but for the future): git automation wants you to put commentary *after* the patch (after the line with three dashes) rather than before. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.