>> Stephen, I do not want to include function names on the commit >> message. What do you think about this updated message, is it >> acceptable? >> > > No still to generic, it needs to be written by a human examining > the file and understanding what the cause and effect of the bug > is. Stephen I've understood what you want. But it is not clear to me why you want. Let me show what Coccinelle produces as output: [peter@ace linux-next]$ spatch ../../cocci/ret4.cocci -dir . ... * TODO [[view:./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::face=ovl-face1::linb=2894::colb=1::cole=3][./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::2894]] [[view:./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::face=ovl-face2::linb=2966::colb=1::cole=3][./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::2966]] [[view:./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::face=ovl-face2::linb=3015::colb=1::cole=7][./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::3015]] ... There is "no" automatic code transformation. The semantic patch I'm using only points out where to investigate to change, or not, the code. The output is in Emcas org-mode format. So I can tell you that the patches are not being robot generated. I'm making the patches, one by one, with great help of Coccinelle, but I'm making the code changes by hand. I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch makes sense. Can you please help me on that? > -- Peter -- 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
