From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752877AbZCLLvo (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:51:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755936AbZCLLvY (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:51:24 -0400 Received: from vpn.id2.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:35469 "EHLO vpn.id2.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756159AbZCLLvX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:51:23 -0400 Message-Id: <49B9056F.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 8.0.0 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:51:59 +0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Ingo Molnar" Cc: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix HYPERVISOR_update_descriptor() References: <49B8F3D4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20090312105426.GC30204@elte.hu> <49B8FF3E.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20090312113520.GA8353@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090312113520.GA8353@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Ingo Molnar 12.03.09 12:35 >>> >* Jan Beulich wrote: >> I'm confused: What point is there to add a textual description >> that matches the subject? [...] > >For example, under what circumstances did you trigger the bug, >how widely does it affect people, how did you test it. You are >sending patches very close to the 2.6.29 release, and your >commit log is non-existent. > >Yes, i can figure out what the patch does, but that is not the >point. > >The point is for you to be forthcoming with such information and >trying to be helpful to the maintenance process, by properly >describing changes, by describing how you found the bug, how you >tested the fix, how significant you find the fix, etc. > >I.e. try to emit the information you have about this _already_, >and generously so, instead of hiding it and forcing others to >recover it. Hmm, I'm really just following what I see from many others. And I have to admit that there are [tiny] patches that really don't need much explanation (and I often find quite the inverse - huge patches that have [almost] no description). >>It might be a small work for me to recover it and >>put it into the changelog, but many of your past patches showed >>such a pattern and such overhead mounts up quickly. I'm sorry for that - I simply wasn't aware I'm causing you to do extra work. I usually try to be as verbose with patches as seems necessary to me - after all I have no other way to judge ho much is too little or too much. >> [...] And where is the need for an impact line documented >> (clearly neither SubmitChecklist no SubmittingPatches have any >> occurrence of the word impact), i.e. what are the valid values >> to chose from? > >See: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/28/67 Thanks. Would certainly be helpful to put into Documentation/ if this is meant to be more than just a personal requirement of yours. Jan