On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:50:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, > > > ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug > > > or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to > > > mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already > > > got merged. I dont understand your point. > > > > I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what > > the effect of the patch is and describe this". > > Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be > mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable. Hell, yes. I'm sick and tired of "$DRIVER: fix sparse warnings <something far off-screen when looking at it in mutt on xterm>" kind of subjects, while we are at it. Mention the tool when that adds information useful for understanding commit message and patch; otherwise you are just adding noise. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
