On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 06:30:45PM +0000, Colberg, Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 11:39 +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:47:43PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > > From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This amends commit 782d8e61b5d6 ("fpga: dfl: kernel-doc corrections"),
> > > which separately addressed the kernel-doc warnings below. Add a more
> > > precise description of the feature argument to dfl_fme_create_mgr(),
> > > and also use plural in the description of dfl_fme_destroy_bridges().
> > >
> > > lkp reported 2 build warnings:
> > >
> > > drivers/fpga/dfl/dfl-fme-pr.c:175: warning: Function parameter or member 'feature' not described in 'dfl_fme_create_mgr'
> > >
> > > > > drivers/fpga/dfl/dfl-fme-pr.c:280: warning: expecting prototype for
> > > > > dfl_fme_destroy_bridge(). Prototype was for dfl_fme_destroy_bridges()
> > > > > instead
> >
> > Why still list the 2 warnings here? Do they still exsit even with commit
> > 782d8e61b5d6 ("fpga: dfl: kernel-doc corrections") ?
> >
> > >
> > > Fixes: 29de76240e86 ("fpga: dfl: fme: add partial reconfiguration sub feature support")
> >
> > You are still trying to fix this commit?
>
> I included the commit message from your original patch in full to show
> the initial motivation for the patch. As described, the issue has been
The out-of-date initial motivation, the commit 782d8e61b5d6, the listed
logs are not related to your change. It shouldn't appear in this patch.
Remember the commit message goes into git if the patch is merged. People
get confused about these information.
> addressed already; your patch merely polishes the the doc strings.
When you decide to submit a patch public, it is *YOUR* patch. You should
not list all the history and expect the original author decides what to
do.
>
> > I'm sorry, but please do check and test your patches before submit.
> > Re-submitting quickly but full of errors makes people doubt if you are
> > really serious about your patches. At least, I do have doubt if you did
> > tests for all your patches, or if your test could sufficiently prove the
> > issue exists or fixed.
>
> Apologies for sending the v1 patch, which had been rebased incorrectly.
This is not about the v1 patch, every new comer makes mistake. I just
don't like that you sent patches too quickly but didn't address the
previous concern.
Thanks,
Yilun
