Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:16:21 +0100 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: cleanup patches 20090322 |
| |
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:40:02AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Monday 23 March 2009 20:15:06 Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 18:45 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > On Monday 23 March 2009 07:22:56 Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > > > x86: e820.h fix various signedness issues in setup.c and e820.c > > > > > > Wouldn't fixing the users be better than changing the header? Esp. since > > > it could well now cause similar warnings in userspace programs. > ... > > Is this OK, or should I go more further: > > > > From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@gmail.com> > > Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:13:01 +0530 > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: e820 fix various signedness issues in setup.c and e820.c > > > > Impact: cleanup > > > > This fixed various signedness issues in setup.c and e820.c: > > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c:455:53: warning: incorrect type in argument 3 (different signedness) > > This looks fine (assuming it fixes the warnings). > > In future it would be nice to explicitly mention that these are "sparse" > warnings, not actual "signedness issues" ("Impact: cleanup" implies that, > but the subject makes it sound like there's a pressing problem).
As long as this goes into the body of the changelog - yes. We do not want those overly long subject lines.
Sam
| |