linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:36:17 +0200
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>,
        Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required
 is/required if/

On 2017-09-25 17:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
>> On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>>
>> Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please
>> add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic
>> "The canonical patch format"?
> 
> A patch should provide the answer to 3 questions: what?, why?, and how?,
> and IMHO all of these have been answered.
> What more can I say, besides duplicating the one-line summary?
> 
>> Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and
>> I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry...
> 
> Are they? AFAIK only if they apply patches that need more explanation.

There was an LWN article a while back that counted the number of patches
with an empty body and presented a table with top "offenders".

But ok, I'll just fix it up myself as I apply it. Hopefully w/o adding any
further speeling mitsaeks..,.

Cheers,
Peter