Re: [PATCH 0/1] readlinkat() error code change for empty pathname

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Thu,  4 Aug 2011 12:00:33 +0100 Andy Whitcroft wrote:

> In the 3.0 kernel we seem to have a semantic change in the error

Meta-comment:  Please drop the use of patch 0/1 for only one patch.
Just use the canonical patch format as described in Documentation/SubmittingPatches:


<quote>

15) The canonical patch format

The canonical patch subject line is:

    Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase

The canonical patch message body contains the following:

  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.

  - An empty line.

  - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
    permanent changelog to describe this patch.

  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
    also go in the changelog.

  - A marker line containing simply "---".

  - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.

  - The actual patch (diff output).

[...]

The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
handling tools where the changelog message ends.

One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for
a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of
inserted and deleted lines per file.  A diffstat is especially useful
on bigger patches.  Other comments relevant only to the moment or the
maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go
here.  A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the
patch.

If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please
use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from
the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal
space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).

</quote>


Thanks.
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***