Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932660Ab2JDRcQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:32:16 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:35010 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932071Ab2JDRcO (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:32:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121004074442.180d8f01@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1349281090-10013-20-git-send-email-peter.senna@gmail.com> <20121003092508.6a7da662@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20121004074442.180d8f01@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 19:32:12 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/skge.c: fix error return code From: Peter Senna Tschudin To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: mlindner@marvell.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1688 Lines: 41 >> Stephen, I do not want to include function names on the commit >> message. What do you think about this updated message, is it >> acceptable? >> > > No still to generic, it needs to be written by a human examining > the file and understanding what the cause and effect of the bug > is. Stephen I've understood what you want. But it is not clear to me why you want. Let me show what Coccinelle produces as output: [peter@ace linux-next]$ spatch ../../cocci/ret4.cocci -dir . ... * TODO [[view:./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::face=ovl-face1::linb=2894::colb=1::cole=3][./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::2894]] [[view:./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::face=ovl-face2::linb=2966::colb=1::cole=3][./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::2966]] [[view:./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::face=ovl-face2::linb=3015::colb=1::cole=7][./drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sungem.c::3015]] ... There is "no" automatic code transformation. The semantic patch I'm using only points out where to investigate to change, or not, the code. The output is in Emcas org-mode format. So I can tell you that the patches are not being robot generated. I'm making the patches, one by one, with great help of Coccinelle, but I'm making the code changes by hand. I can't understand the advantages of describing each patch as you are asking. "For me" the generic commit message together with the patch makes sense. Can you please help me on that? > -- Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/