From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: helgaas@kernel.org (Bjorn Helgaas) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:39:50 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] genirq/affinity: allow driver to setup managed IRQ's affinity In-Reply-To: <20190211035358.GA8638@ming.t460p> References: <20190125095347.17950-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20190125095347.17950-3-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20190211035358.GA8638@ming.t460p> Message-ID: <20190211143950.GA151039@google.com> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019@11:54:00AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019@05:30:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > This patch introduces callback of .setup_affinity into 'struct > > > irq_affinity', so that: > > > > Please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Search for 'This > > patch' .... > > Sorry for that, because I am not a native English speaker and it looks a bit > difficult for me to understand the subtle difference. I think Thomas is saying that instead of "This patch introduces callback ...", you could say "Introduce callback of ...". The changelog is *part* of the patch, so the context is obvious and there's no need to include the words "This patch". I make the same changes to patches I receive. In fact, I would go even further and say "Add callback .setup_affinity() ..." because "add" means the same as "introduce" but is shorter and simpler. Bjorn