On Wednesday, October 16th, 2024 at 07:33, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 07:28:57PM +0000, Dominik Karol Piątkowski wrote: > > > Add a TODO file stub for the gpib driver. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Karol Piątkowski dominik.karol.piatkowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > > v2: Remove maintainers from TODO, as they can be found in MAINTAINERS file > > drivers/staging/gpib/TODO | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 drivers/staging/gpib/TODO > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gpib/TODO b/drivers/staging/gpib/TODO > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..850dc1102e54 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gpib/TODO > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > +TODO: > > +- checkpatch.pl fixes > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > Hi, > > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him > a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was > created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux > kernel tree. > > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) > as indicated below: > > - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you > did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version. > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the > kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what > needs to be done here to properly describe this. > > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received > from other developers. > > thanks, > > greg k-h's patch email bot Hi Greg, I listed the changes below the --- line. Probably I should have added extra newline, or maybe even another --- line below the changes in order to not trigger the patch-bot message and make it more readable. Maybe I should also explicitly use "V1 -> V2" instead of "v2" when listing changes? I am trying to understand the filtering rules that are in use, in order to avoid this situation in the future. I see that in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst there is an extra newline after listed changes, would it be enough? Thanks, Dominik Karol
