Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:50:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, 
> > > > ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug 
> > > > or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to
> > > > mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already 
> > > > got merged. I dont understand your point.
> > > 
> > > I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what
> > > the effect of the patch is and describe this".
> > 
> > Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be 
> > mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable.
> 
> Hell, yes.  I'm sick and tired of "$DRIVER: fix sparse warnings 
> <something far off-screen when looking at it in mutt on xterm>" kind 
> of subjects, while we are at it.  Mention the tool when that adds 
> information useful for understanding commit message and patch; 
> otherwise you are just adding noise.

No argument that it's not high value enough information to be in the 
title itself. That's why i clearly said it in my first mail:

  "It shouldnt be in the title,"

Stefan Richter's argument was different though, he argued that the 
information should not be in the changelog at all, in any place. That 
was and is my point.

	Ingo