From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760829AbYHFRfK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:35:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755700AbYHFRe6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:34:58 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.171]:64297 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754164AbYHFRe5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:34:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=TPI9fOWighf8XtyEXEWNPXozBnHQROG/eaUFAzMxh5hNNG9BD1x9EGA2cLfKxNFP5k 8IN4iYUTKxtbTH3vXAIxDdEKkoiaNXXK2w7JAQFSNXL941mTEHJdk5ygNft8AaCelM6l SyVfcmQzHvjIuWW++C5lmI2ytPgW9yX87lNMk= Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0808061034je6d1fc8gdbc6b4bba9ddf89@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:34:56 -0400 From: "Mike Frysinger" To: "Vegard Nossum" Subject: Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags Cc: "Bryan Wu" , "Julia Lawall" , "Alexey Dobriyan" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <19f34abd0808060552g65d61647o7df045afccae9b3a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080806105836.GA2903@localhost.localdomain> <8bd0f97a0808060405qf70ead2t2f2604802875197e@mail.gmail.com> <19f34abd0808060428m1c317531v4a58679c4051c0e9@mail.gmail.com> <8bd0f97a0808060514x5c9ed37exbf8f9852b5a0b55d@mail.gmail.com> <19f34abd0808060552g65d61647o7df045afccae9b3a@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>>> 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. > > Hm. I agree that git/eclipse/emacs/etc. information is not very > useful. However... > > For errors found with lockdep, we usually put either the lockdep > output in the commit message or say that it was found with lockdep. > Having this information in the log is useful because it also > establishes a track record for the tool which was used to discover/fix > the error. > > Arguably, the semantic patch itself should be present in the log as > well. There are different practices here, but in this case, the patch > was quite long, and has already been included in a pending commit. Now > others may use the same semantic patch (or a variation of it) and > possibly find more "bad" code (possibly introduced after the semantic > patch was first applied!). that's reasonable to include the actual source (semantic patch) that triggered the resulting change. -mike