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

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk> wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2/15/2009 7:47 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:04:36AM +0530, Manish Katiyar wrote:
> > > >> Hi Ingo,
> > > >> 
> > > >> I used your code-quality script to do cleanup in kernel/kallsyms.c.
> > > >> Below patch removes errors generated by checkpatch.pl.
> > > > When doing so use checkpatch only as a hint generator and do
> > > > not concentrate only on the warnings/errors generated by checkpatch.
> > > > 
> > > > Your patch is an improvement but please fix the remaining issues.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, the changelog is bad (non-exiting in fact).
> > > 
> > > The fact that the issues where discovered using checkpatch is absolutely
> > > uninteresting.  The changelog should describe /what/ is fixed, e.g.
> > > whitespace, maybe other things.  (In case of nontrivial changes the log
> > > may also need to explain not only the /what but also the /how/, but this
> > > does not apply to patches like this one.)
> > 
> > The commit log definitely needs enhancements but it's not uninteresting 
> > at all what tools were used to arrive to a change. It shouldnt be in the 
> > title, but can be mentioned in the changelog itself. (and should be 
> > mentioned if the cleanup ever gets as far as the mainline kernel - if a 
> > good and acceptable commit results out of a tool's usage then that tool 
> > needs to be advertised some more.)
> 
> Is everything below the --- preserved in what is available via git log?  

No, it's lost, so the whole suggestion of putting the method of how a 
patch was motivated into the discarded section is incredibly silly. It 
should not shout in the title but is well placed somewhere in the 
changelog.

	Ingo