+ jes "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. But I also asked who prefers this format in that thread, you should not ignore questions from two maintainers (me and Jes). > 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 TBH I was leaning more on Jes side on this, but I guess these patches are ok if they are so widely accepted. Unless anyone objects? -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
