Heres a new version of the kerneldoc error in ata_piix.c
The old one which doesn't apply clean is in 2.6.18-mm1 and can be removed there if acked.
Greets,
Henne
From: Henrik Kretzschmar <[email protected]>
Fixes an error in kerneldoc of ata_piix.c.
This is the 2nd try, written for 2.6.18-git4
Signed-off-by: Henrik Kretzschmar <[email protected]>
---
--- linux-2.6/drivers/ata/ata_piix.c 2006-09-25 09:27:46.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.18-git4/drivers/ata/ata_piix.c 2006-09-25 20:47:32.000000000 +0200
@@ -851,7 +851,7 @@
* @ap: Port whose timings we are configuring
* @adev: Drive in question
* @udma: udma mode, 0 - 6
- * @is_ich: set if the chip is an ICH device
+ * @isich: set if the chip is an ICH device
*
* Set UDMA mode for device, in host controller PCI config space.
*
Henne wrote:
> Heres a new version of the kerneldoc error in ata_piix.c
> The old one which doesn't apply clean is in 2.6.18-mm1 and can be removed there if acked.
>
> Greets,
> Henne
>
> From: Henrik Kretzschmar <[email protected]>
>
> Fixes an error in kerneldoc of ata_piix.c.
> This is the 2nd try, written for 2.6.18-git4
> Signed-off-by: Henrik Kretzschmar <[email protected]>
Several problems with your patch format:
1) your subject line includes-a-bunch-of-words-separated-by-dashes,
which is incorrect. Just use standard English.
2) "2nd try" should be inside the brackets ("[", "]"), so that the
script removes it during merge
3) All comments such as the first paragraph and "Greets, Henne" should
be moved underneath the "---" separator, so that they are not copied
into the kernel changelog verbatim. You force people to hand-edit your
email before merging.
4) No need for "From:" in the email body, it duplicates the email's
RFC822 From header.
5) Another comment "This is the 2nd try, written for 2.6.18-git4" which
should be moved after the "---" separator. Otherwise, it must be
hand-edited out.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:39:08 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Henne wrote:
> > Heres a new version of the kerneldoc error in ata_piix.c
> > The old one which doesn't apply clean is in 2.6.18-mm1 and can be removed there if acked.
> >
> > Greets,
> > Henne
> >
> > From: Henrik Kretzschmar <[email protected]>
> >
> > Fixes an error in kerneldoc of ata_piix.c.
> > This is the 2nd try, written for 2.6.18-git4
> > Signed-off-by: Henrik Kretzschmar <[email protected]>
>
> Several problems with your patch format:
>
> 1) your subject line includes-a-bunch-of-words-separated-by-dashes,
> which is incorrect. Just use standard English.
>
> 2) "2nd try" should be inside the brackets ("[", "]"), so that the
> script removes it during merge
>
> 3) All comments such as the first paragraph and "Greets, Henne" should
> be moved underneath the "---" separator, so that they are not copied
> into the kernel changelog verbatim. You force people to hand-edit your
> email before merging.
>
> 4) No need for "From:" in the email body, it duplicates the email's
> RFC822 From header.
I agree with all of these except #4. Maybe you can reconcile your
preference with that in Documentation/SubmittingPatches, which
contains:
<quote>
The canonical patch message body contains the following:
- A "from" line specifying the patch author.
</quote>
A patch submitter should not need to know the patch receiver's
personal preferences and vary patches based on those.
> 5) Another comment "This is the 2nd try, written for 2.6.18-git4" which
> should be moved after the "---" separator. Otherwise, it must be
> hand-edited out.
---
~Randy
Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I agree with all of these except #4. Maybe you can reconcile your
> preference with that in Documentation/SubmittingPatches, which
> contains:
>
> <quote>
> The canonical patch message body contains the following:
>
> - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
> </quote>
>
> A patch submitter should not need to know the patch receiver's
> personal preferences and vary patches based on those.
It's not a personal preference. It's all based on git-applymbox, pretty
much.
The SubmittingPatches doc should be updated to clarify that a From line
is not needed in the email body, if it is the same as the From line in
the RFC822 header.
Jeff
Jeff Garzik schrieb:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> I agree with all of these except #4. Maybe you can reconcile your
>> preference with that in Documentation/SubmittingPatches, which
>> contains:
>>
>> <quote>
>> The canonical patch message body contains the following:
>>
>> - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
>> </quote>
>>
>> A patch submitter should not need to know the patch receiver's
>> personal preferences and vary patches based on those.
>
>
> It's not a personal preference. It's all based on git-applymbox, pretty
> much.
>
> The SubmittingPatches doc should be updated to clarify that a From line
> is not needed in the email body, if it is the same as the From line in
> the RFC822 header.
>
> Jeff
Thanks for pointing my nose on this guys! I'll keep that in mind when writing patches, but that from line
should be discussed by the maintainers.
Greets and thanks,
Henne
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:37:38 +0200 Henne wrote:
> Jeff Garzik schrieb:
> > Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> I agree with all of these except #4. Maybe you can reconcile your
> >> preference with that in Documentation/SubmittingPatches, which
> >> contains:
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> The canonical patch message body contains the following:
> >>
> >> - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> A patch submitter should not need to know the patch receiver's
> >> personal preferences and vary patches based on those.
> >
> >
> > It's not a personal preference. It's all based on git-applymbox, pretty
> > much.
> >
> > The SubmittingPatches doc should be updated to clarify that a From line
> > is not needed in the email body, if it is the same as the From line in
> > the RFC822 header.
It seems to be a small, simple matter of "not needed" vs. "allowed".
AFAIK, From: is always allowed but it is not needed if the From: mail
header matches the From: body text.
> > Jeff
> Thanks for pointing my nose on this guys! I'll keep that in mind when writing patches, but that from line
> should be discussed by the maintainers.
---
~Randy