On Mon, 09 May 2022 14:14:02 +0300 Kalle Valo wrote: > > 1) When I send PRs to Linus I always wonder how much he can > > make out of the shortlog. And if people throw "net:" into the mix > > whether it's still clear when something is "just" a driver bug vs > > a core bug affecting everyone. So I started using "eth: " for ethernet > > drivers, and "wifi: " for wireless drivers in the text of the PRs. > > > > 2) For people doing backporting the driver names may not be meaningful, > > but if I'm doing backports for a datacenter kernel I know to pay > > attention to "eth:" while "wifi:" I can safely skip. > > Is there a specific reason why you use "wifi:" and not "wireless:"? I > admit the term wireless is not great for our 802.11 subsystem but that > has been used as long as I know. Right, I take the liberty of using wifi in PR texts since it seems most appropriate as none of the low range or WWAN drivers go via the wireless tree. > > 3) The case of this set - I have conversions for the entire tree queued > > up on a branch, it's quite useful for me to use a common area-specific > > prefix to see what goes were. > > > > Anyway, that's just me rambling. I hope you don't mind if I send things > > with a wifi prefix from time to time given it's a convenient way for me > > to mark the queued patches. > > I don't mind if you submit with "wifi:", it's easy to edit patches with > my patchwork script during commit :) And if there's a strong need I > think we can change our title scheme in wireless patches. This has come > before but I have always resisted due to extra work involved. To me most > important is consistency within wireless subsystem, if different > wireless drivers (and stack) use a different scheme when the logs will > become hard to read. So I would hope everyone can agree to the new > scheme. No need to change the scheme overall. What you use now is the most prevalent in the tree so I'm probably overthinking.
