From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix kvmclock bug Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:58:05 +0200 Message-ID: <4CA2FF9D.6080603@redhat.com> References: <4C95560D.3050108@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Jan Kiszka , kvm , Glauber Costa To: Zachary Amsden Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65238 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753789Ab0I2I6K (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:58:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C95560D.3050108@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/19/2010 02:15 AM, Zachary Amsden wrote: > commit 1abe7e8806fd71ea802c6622ed3ce7821a18f271 > Author: Zachary Amsden > Date: Sat Sep 18 13:58:37 2010 -1000 > > Fix kvmclock bug I think there's some redundancy here. Anyone who has tracked your kernel work knows you've done a lot of work on kvmclock, so "Fix bug" would be just as descriptive. Of course, if we fix something, it's because it was a bug, so "Fix" is all that's really necessary ("bug" would be reserved for commits that introduce bugs). In the case of kvmclock, it's hard to see how new features could be added, and it has a pretty bad history of bugs, so most readers would probably deduce that a commit fixes a bug. I don't really see why you wrote a subject line at all. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.