[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:57:35 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
Kenneth Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Hüwe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:41:04PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Do you find my wording “This issue was detected by using the
> Coccinelle software.” insufficient?
This is fine for cover letter, not for the commits.
After your analysis software finds an issue you should manually analyze
what is wrong and document that to the commit message. This applies to
sparse, coccinelle or any other tool.
Tool-based commit messages are bad for commit history where as clean
description gives idea what was done (if you have to maintain a GIT
tree).
In my opinion tool is doing all the work but the part that you should do
is absent.
> Regards,
> Markus
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists