Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Series to improve setsockopt() TCP_USER_TIMEOUT accuracy

[Jon Maxwell <jmaxwell@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/16/2018 09:15 PM, Jon Maxwell wrote:
>> This is a patch series based on:
>>
>> Jon Maxwell (3):
>>   [PATCH net-next 1/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs
>>   [PATCH net-next v1 2/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs
>>   [PATCH net-next v1 3/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs
>
> This would have been nice to use meaningful titles for each patch,
> instead of copy/pasting the first one ?
>
> Thanks !
>
>
>

This is my 1st time doing a patch series. Let me rebase and resubmit
each with a more descriptive title.

But 1st do I still need to put the patch number in the series? Even if
the title differs?

1) e.g:

Jon Maxwell (3):
   [PATCH net-next 1/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs
   [PATCH net-next 2/3] tcp: Add tcp_retransmit_stamp() helper
   [PATCH net-next 3/3] tcp: Add  tcp_clamp_rto_to_user_timeout() to
improve accuracy

2) or:

Jon Maxwell (3):
   [PATCH net-next] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs
   [PATCH net-next] tcp: Add tcp_retransmit_time() helper
   [PATCH net-next] tcp: Add  tcp_clamp_rto_to_user_timeout() to
improve TCP_USER_TIMEOUT accuracy

Which is preferred (1) or (2)? Are the above titles descriptive enough?

Regards

Jon