Hi Dan, On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 22:49:38 EET Dan Murphy wrote: > On 12/13/2017 02:43 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > > On 12/13/2017 09:41 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: > >> On 12/13/2017 02:29 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > >>> Hi Dan, > >>> > >>> checkpatch.pl doesn't want to be mentioned in the patch subject :-) > >> > >> Ack > >> > >>> "WARNING: A patch subject line should describe the change not the tool > >>> that found it" > >>> > >>> Preferably I'd see two separate patches. > >> > >> So you want me to split them up? I have no issue with that. > > > > Yeah, it will be easier to come up with concise but meaningful > > subjects. Well, given that one change splits a line that is too long and the other one merges two lines that fit within the limit we could come up with a message that covers both :-) This is nitpicking though, it doesn't matter much. I have no issue with a patch that has some "while at it" portion anyway as long as it's minor (I personally include white space fixes in patches that touch the related code for instance). > When I split these up can I add your Acked-by to each patch or would you > prefer to resend your Acked-by for each patch? Assuming you make no mistake, you can keep my ack :-) It will of course not cover the commit message then. > >>> Also, line length limit for the commit description is 75 characters. > >>> Please use whole available space. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
