[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190211143950.GA151039@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:39:50 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] genirq/affinity: allow driver to setup managed IRQ's
affinity
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:54:00AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 05:30:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > > This patch introduces callback of .setup_affinity into 'struct
> > > irq_affinity', so that:
> >
> > Please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Search for 'This
> > patch' ....
>
> Sorry for that, because I am not a native English speaker and it looks a bit
> difficult for me to understand the subtle difference.
I think Thomas is saying that instead of "This patch introduces
callback ...", you could say "Introduce callback of ...".
The changelog is *part* of the patch, so the context is obvious and
there's no need to include the words "This patch".
I make the same changes to patches I receive. In fact, I would go
even further and say "Add callback .setup_affinity() ..." because "add"
means the same as "introduce" but is shorter and simpler.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists