Hi, On 3/5/20 10:10, Kalle Valo wrote: > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, 2020-03-05 at 16:50 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> [] >>>> drivers/net/wireless/zydas/zd1211rw/zd_usb.h | 8 ++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> "zd1211rw: " is enough, no need to have the filename in the title. > >>> But I asked this already in an earlier patch, who prefers this format? >>> It already got opposition so I'm not sure what to do. >> >> I think it doesn't matter. >> >> Trivial inconsistencies in patch subject and word choice >> don't have much overall impact. > > I wrote in a confusing way, my question above was about the actual patch > and not the the title. For example, Jes didn't like this style change: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11402315/ > It doesn't seem that that comment adds a lot to the conversation. The only thing that it says is literally "fix the compiler". By the way, more than a hundred patches have already been applied to linux-next[1] and he seems to be the only person that has commented such a thing. Qemu guys are adopting this format, too[2][3]. On the other hand, the changelog text explains the reasons why we are implementing this change all across the kernel tree. :) [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/?qt=grep&q=flexible-array [2] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-s390x/2020-03/msg00019.html [3] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-s390x/2020-03/msg00020.html Thanks -- Gustavo
