lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/3 RESEND] tpm: add longer timeouts for creation commands.
Date

>
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 14:59 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:36:36PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 08:32 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 08:06 +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:09:09PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why you need cover letter?  What are u missing in the patch
> > > > > > > description
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you submit a *patch set* I *require* a cover letter, yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's good but it is not must, you are inventing your own rules.
> > > >
> > > > As long as the Maintainer is the gatekeeper, you're not going to
> > > > get very far with this argument.  The fact is that a lot of
> > > > subsystems have varying rules; often undocumented, some of which
> > > > are even in conflict, like alphabetic vs reverse christmas tree format for
> includes.
> > > >
> > > > A cover letter is actually one of the more uniform rules.  It's
> > > > referred to in submitting patches, but not actually documented there.
> > >
> > > I've heard that some maintainers are moving away from cover letters,
> > > since they are not include in the git repo and are lost.  I've seen
> > > Andrew Morton cut and paste the cover letter in the first patch
> > > description of the patch set.
> >
> > Andrew has a workflow unlike any other I've seen..
>
> Andrew is the only one that actually cut and pasted the cover letter in the
> first patch description, but I've heard this from others.
>
> > In my view the cover letter should explain why the maintainer should
> > apply the series, and give any guidance to the review process.
>
> > Not duplicate information that belongs in the patch comments. It
> > shouldn't explain how/why the patch(es) works, etc.
>
> Patch descriptions should never explain how/why a particular patch
> works.  If it is that difficult to understand, then something is wrong with the
> patch.  The individual patch descriptions should provide the current status,
> the motivation for the change, and short summary of the change (eg. new
> features, configs, etc).
>
> The cover letter is needed for (larger) patch sets in order to explain the
> overall motivation, instead of having to guess where the patch set is going.  I
> wouldn't expect to see a cover letter for a single bug fix or two.
>
> Mimi

I second that.

Tomas.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-07 16:42    [W:0.045 / U:27.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site