Re: [PATCH] ftrace: As disabling interrupts is costly and write_lock variant of tasklist_lock is not held from interrupt context it is not necessary to disable interrupts.

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Thu, 19 May 2016 08:53:17 +0000
"N, Soumya P" <soumya.p.n@hpe.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> Could you please explain what this error means?
> Is it related to length of subject?
> I have run checkpatch.pl on patch and didn't show any error.
> 
> Thanks,
> Soumya.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Rostedt [mailto:rostedt@goodmis.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 1:25 AM
> To: N, Soumya P <soumya.p.n@hpe.com>
> Cc: mingo@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: As disabling interrupts is costly and write_lock variant of tasklist_lock is not held from interrupt context it is not necessary to disable interrupts.
> 
> 
> -ERUNONSUBJECT

A subject (and this includes normal net etiquette as well) should be a
short description of what the email (or patch) is about, preferably
under 80 characters. What you supplied is an abstract.

it should have been something as simple as:

 ftrace: Don't disable interrupts when taking read_lock() for graph tracer

And don't rely on checkpatch.pl. Read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
in the kernel proper.

-- Steve