From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20121004.142335.1467206545795435493.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20121004074442.180d8f01@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, mlindner@marvell.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: peter.senna@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44527 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752476Ab2JDSXh (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:23:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Peter Senna Tschudin Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200 > I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are > asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch > makes sense. Can you please help me on that? Stop being so dense. We want to know the implications of the bug being fixed. Does it potentially cause an OOPS? Bad reference counting and thus potential leaks or early frees? You have to analyze the implications and ramifications of the bug being fixed. We need that information. Your commit messages are in fact robotic, they don't describe the salient details of what kinds of problems the bug being fixed might cause. It's just "bad error code, this is the script that fixed it, kthx, bye" which is pretty much useless for anaylsis.