[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11486565.PIGBh3m9bD@avalon>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 23:32:18 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
Cc: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, rpurdie@...ys.net, pavel@....cz,
sakari.ailus@....fi, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] leds: as3645a: Fix checkpatch warnings
Hi Dan,
On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 22:49:38 EET Dan Murphy wrote:
> On 12/13/2017 02:43 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> > On 12/13/2017 09:41 PM, Dan Murphy wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2017 02:29 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> >>> Hi Dan,
> >>>
> >>> checkpatch.pl doesn't want to be mentioned in the patch subject :-)
> >>
> >> Ack
> >>
> >>> "WARNING: A patch subject line should describe the change not the tool
> >>> that found it"
> >>>
> >>> Preferably I'd see two separate patches.
> >>
> >> So you want me to split them up? I have no issue with that.
> >
> > Yeah, it will be easier to come up with concise but meaningful
> > subjects.
Well, given that one change splits a line that is too long and the other one
merges two lines that fit within the limit we could come up with a message
that covers both :-) This is nitpicking though, it doesn't matter much. I have
no issue with a patch that has some "while at it" portion anyway as long as
it's minor (I personally include white space fixes in patches that touch the
related code for instance).
> When I split these up can I add your Acked-by to each patch or would you
> prefer to resend your Acked-by for each patch?
Assuming you make no mistake, you can keep my ack :-) It will of course not
cover the commit message then.
> >>> Also, line length limit for the commit description is 75 characters.
> >>> Please use whole available space.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists