Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:09:08 -0700 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/1] readlinkat() error code change for empty pathname |
| |
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:00:33 +0100 Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> In the 3.0 kernel we seem to have a semantic change in the error
Meta-comment: Please drop the use of patch 0/1 for only one patch. Just use the canonical patch format as described in Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
<quote>
15) The canonical patch format
The canonical patch subject line is:
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
The canonical patch message body contains the following:
- A "from" line specifying the patch author.
- An empty line.
- The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
- The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will also go in the changelog.
- A marker line containing simply "---".
- Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.
- The actual patch (diff output).
[...]
The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch handling tools where the changelog message ends.
One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of inserted and deleted lines per file. A diffstat is especially useful on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go here. A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs" which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the patch.
If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
</quote>
Thanks. --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
| |