On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:05:55 +0200 Peter Senna Tschudin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Thanks for looking into these kind of problems. The contents > > of the patch are correct, but the automated commit message is useless. > > You shouldn't just blindly say what the automated > > script was looking for, you should describe what the bug is so that > > evaluators > > can decide what the impact is and if it should be backported to stable > > and vendor kernels. > > > > Please resubmit the patchs with a reasonable analysis in the commit message. > > Something like: > > > > There is a bug in skge driver. If alloc_etherdev() fails, then > > skge_devinit() will return NULL, and the skge_probe function incorrectly > > returns success 0. It should return -ENOMEM instead. > > > > > > Stephen, I do not want to include function names on the commit > message. What do you think about this updated message, is it > acceptable? > No still to generic, it needs to be written by a human examining the file and understanding what the cause and effect of the bug is. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
