Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

["Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>>> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>>>>
>>>> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
>>>> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
>>>> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>>>
>>> indeed, thanks
>>>
>>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>>
>>> spam ?
>>
>> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
>> the credit is undeserved?
>
> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
> The patch was generated with git.
> The patch was generated with eclipse.
> The patch was generated with emacs.
> etc...
>
> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
> looking back historically at changes.

although, such information may be fine in the region after --- where
the diffstat normally shows up as that will not go into the log ...
-mike