From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752180AbZBPRPb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750862AbZBPRPW (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:22 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:35659 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750726AbZBPRPV (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:15:09 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Julia Lawall Cc: Stefan Richter , Sam Ravnborg , Manish Katiyar , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c Message-ID: <20090216171509.GA26995@elte.hu> References: <20090215184752.GA4970@uranus.ravnborg.org> <4999650C.6030700@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216132822.GC17996@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Stefan Richter 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