[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CO2PR01MB20886F76389641CAC8D2571AD05D0@CO2PR01MB2088.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:44:27 +0000
From: Hartley Sweeten <HartleyS@...ionengravers.com>
To: Ravishankar Karkala Mallikarjunayya <ravishankarkm32@...il.com>,
"abbotti@....co.uk" <abbotti@....co.uk>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] Staging: comedi: Prefer using the BIT macro issue in
dmm32at.c
On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 4:51 AM, Ravishankar Karkala Mallikarjunayya wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Staging: comedi: Prefer using the BIT macro issue in dmm32at.c
Please don't add random patches to a series. You started this series with 1/4, 2/4,
3/4 and 4/4 then added a 5/5.
Also, please fix the subject lines to include the driver name. This makes thing
clearer when multiple patches do similar things. The subject lines should look
something like this:
staging: comedi: <driver>: <short description>
> This patch Replace all occurences of (1<<x) by BIT(x) in the file das16.c
> to get rid of checkpatch.pl "CHECK" output "Prefer using the BIT macro"
There is no need to state that this is a patch. That is already known.
Regards,
Hartley
Powered by blists - more mailing lists