Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] rust: device: rename "Device::from_raw()"

[Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:57:25AM -0300, Guilherme Giácomo Simões wrote:
> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:43:27AM -0300, Guilherme Giacomo Simoes wrote:
> > > This function increments the refcount by a call to
> > > "bindings::get_device(ptr)". This can be confused because, the function
> > > Arch::from_raw() from standard library, don't increments the refcount.
> > > Hence, rename "Device::from_raw()" to avoid confusion with other
> > > "from_raw" semantics.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  rust/kernel/device.rs   | 2 +-
> > >  rust/kernel/firmware.rs | 2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
> > a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
> > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> > created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> > kernel tree.
> >
> > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> > as indicated below:
> >
> > - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
> >   did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
> >   Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
> >   kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
> >   needs to be done here to properly describe this.
> >
> > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> > from other developers.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h's patch email bot
> 
> Yeah, I was think that only in 0/1 I should explain the changes ..
> I'm was wrong.   I'll put the changelog in 1/1 too.
> 

It's fine to have the changelog in the cover letter. I don't know under which
exact conditions Greg's bot triggers though. Normally,

For a single patch of this size and complexity a cover letter isn't needed
though.

But don't worry, no need to resend. :)