From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shyam Saini Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:10:14 +0530 Message-ID: <20170116174014.GB10618@mystictot> References: <1484538277-21376-1-git-send-email-mayhs11saini@gmail.com> <20170115.233830.123911280062970298.davem@davemloft.net> <20170116092435.GA2970@mystictot> <20170116.114606.1692928906878877115.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Yuval.Mintz@cavium.com, Ariel.Elior@cavium.com, everest-linux-l2@cavium.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:34150 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750777AbdAPRkc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:40:32 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id y143so14503950pfb.1 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:40:32 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170116.114606.1692928906878877115.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:46:06AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Shyam Saini > Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:54:35 +0530 > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:38:30PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > >> > >> Please do not ever submit two patches which have the same exact commit > >> header line, as these two patches do. > >> > >> When someone looks into the shortlog of GIT history all they will see > >> is "qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr" twice. > >> > >> This gives the reader no idea what might be different between those > >> two changes. > >> > >> Therefore you must give unique a commit header text for each change, > >> which communicates sufficiently what is different in each change. > > > > Thanks a lot for correcting me. I'll take care of this thing. > > > > I'm resending these two patches as > > 1). qed: Replace memset with eth_zero_addr > > 2). qed: Use eth_zero_addr > > > > I hope it resolves same commit header line conflict. > > You aren't understanding the point. > > Those two lines still say exactly the same thing. > > What is different about these two changes? The answer to that question > must propagate into those lines of text. I got your point now. As pointed by you and Mintz, I'll resend it as a single patch. I sincerely appreciate your efforts for making things clearer and correcting me. Thanks a lot, Shyam