On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:51:30 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Impact: fix bug > > i think this needs to be marked Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> as well, for > 2.6.29.x, maybe even 2.6.28.x ? > > ( Please note a small commit log detail: a few days go we started > putting impact lines to the end of the commit as 'footers', in > square brackets - right before the signoff lines. We do this to > move them closer to other mechanic-looking tags and to not intrude > the flow of the natural-language story line of the commit. > > Also note that 'fix bug' is not a good impact line even if it was > a footer, because it does not really summarize the effects of a > patch specifically enough. A better variant would be: > > [ Impact: fix corrupted names in /proc/iomem ] > > I've inserted this impact line into your commit below, to show the > exact placement we started using. Note, this impact line would > also be a perfect summary line, if the 'pci: ' tag is added before > it: > > pci: fix corrupted names in /proc/iomem > > Jesse or Linus might opt to remove the impact line - it's a per > subsystem discretion thing. ) Yeah I noticed the x86 patches seem to have those "Impact" lines these days, but I couldn't figure out what they meant. Sometimes they indicate the symptom being addressed, other times they act as a sort of summary subject. What's the intention? Is it really "user visible impact"? Or something else? Patch subjects generally suffer from similar ambiguity (sometimes describing what the patch is doing to the code, other times what issue the patch is addressing), so it would be nice if "Impact" was something separate and well defined. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
