[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPwwkU7+zHo2jpt+ovJDE1ca=K8AKyowyA5Z9pOFAy6iifVEwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:54:41 +0530
From: Anshul <anshulusr@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: richard.henderson@...aro.org, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
mattst88@...il.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fixed formatting issues
Hello Greg,
> - Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult
> to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a
> time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding
> style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each
> one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the
> patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any
> merge issues that larger patches can cause.
I believe that splitting the patch is not necessary in this instance since
the changes are localized and trivial to reason about.
> - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing
> everyone, to know what this patch is all about. Please read the
> section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what a proper
> Subject: line should look like.
As per the feedback, the updated patch has incorporated the changes.
> - It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either
> the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to
> match). Please read the kernel file,
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for how to do this
> correctly.
I have verified that the Signed-off-by: line and the From: line contain the
same content.
Thanks for the feedback,
Anshul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists