[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36b57ea5-baff-f964-3088-e1b186532cfe@web.de>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 18:55:13 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@...utronix.de>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Aravindhan Gunasekaran <aravindhan.gunasekaran@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Mallikarjuna Chilakala <mallikarjuna.chilakala@...el.com>,
Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Tan Tee Min <tee.min.tan@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/6] igc: Rename qbv_enable to
taprio_offload_enable
> The rename should reduce this confusion.
Would the wording “Reduce this confusion by renaming a variable at three places”
be more appropriate for a subsequent change description?
See also:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.4#n94
> Since it is a pure
> rename, it has no impact on functionality.
>
> Fixes: e17090eb2494 ("igc: allow BaseTime 0 enrollment for Qbv")
How does such information fit together?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists