On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 08:19, Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 23.03.22 um 09:10 schrieb Paul Menzel: > > > Sorry, I disagree. The motivation needs to be part of the commit > > > message. For example see recent discussion on the LWN article > > > *Donenfeld: Random number generator enhancements for Linux 5.17 and > > > 5.18* [1]. > > > > > > How much the commit message should be extended, I do not know, but the > > > current state is insufficient (too terse). > > > > Well the key point is it's not about you to judge that. > > > > If you want to complain about the commit message then come to me with > > that and don't request information which isn't supposed to be publicly > > available. > > > > So to make it clear: The information is intentionally hold back and not > > made public. > > In that case, the code isn't suitable to be merged into upstream > trees; it can be resubmitted when it can be explained. So you are saying we need to publish the problematic RTL to be able to fix a HW bug in the kernel? That seems a little unreasonable. Also, links to internal documents or bug trackers don't provide much value to the community since they can't access them. In general, adding internal documents to commit messages is frowned on. Alex
