On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 29/01/15 11:38, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 25/01/15 16:47, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> v2: fixed subject line > >>> > >>> The return type of wait_for_completion_timeout is unsigned long not > >>> int. This patch fixes up the declarations only. > >>> > >>> Patch was compile tested only for x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_X86_VSMP=y > >>> CONFIG_HYPERV=m, CONFIG_FB_HYPERV=m > >> > >> Why didn't you set the text above as the patch description (which is > >> empty at the moment)? > >> > > basically because the one-line is sufficient to understand the patch > > You didn't have one line, you had no description. Patch subject is not > patch description. In the minimal case, the description should have the > same text as the subject, but usually it's better to have a bit more > text in the description. ok - was not clear about this - got it. > > > and the rest of the information is not relevant for the git log but only > > for the review > > > > if you think it is necessary to understand the patch I'll move it and > > resubmit. > > Well, a good description is not only about understanding the code in the > patch. It may contain information like which platform/setup this issue > happened on, are the any possible side effects, or whatever might be > relevant for someone looking at the patch years later. > yup - but it seemed to me that the information on the build config and kernel version details would not really be relevant for this cleanup patch - so if I got your right the description line should have gone up and the config/kernel info stays below "---". Just resent it - hope this is correct now. thx! hofrat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
