| Message ID | 1368159848-3964-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Albert ARIBAUD |
| Headers | show |
> Changed for v2: > - Fix one more comment I added one more comment line fixed at version 2. So, I am thinking the commit log should become "arm: fix comments" rather than "arm: fix a comment" Is it better to re-post my patch as version 3 with only commit log changed? Am I too worried about it?? I'm new here, and I'm not sure this kind of update is mandatory. I will appreciate any advice. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Hi Masahiro, On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:43:07 +0900, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote: > > > Changed for v2: > > - Fix one more comment > > I added one more comment line fixed at version 2. > > So, I am thinking the commit log should become > "arm: fix comments" > rather than > "arm: fix a comment" > > Is it better to re-post my patch as version 3 > with only commit log changed? > Am I too worried about it?? You should try to read your commit message summary to yourself as if you did not know what the change is about, because that's what it is useful for: giving people a good idea of the change. If the summary tells everything except the actual source code change, that's good. A summary of "arm: fix comments" indicates two things about the change: explicitly, that it is about ARM; and implicitly, that it is cosmetic. But it does not say which part of U-Boot it applies to, even though this single file can be mentioned in a summary line. Readers will have to waste some time looking at the change content to find out. Plus, if it is cosmetic, then the fact that it is about ARM does not matter that much, does it? e.g., someone looking for ARM changes that might explain a weird behavior will most certainly not be interested in this change even though it is ARM. For instance, a cosmetic fix on ARM code could easily go in the mainline tree without going through the ARM tree first. So, I'd put "cosmetic:" first, but admittedly, that's a debatable point. So... how about a V3 with a commit summary of "cosmetic: arm: fix comments in arch/arm/lib/crt0.S" ? People reading the summary for no particular reason will know all there is to know except the detailed comment fixes; people looking for crt0 changes will see it, and so will people looking for ARM changes, but "cosmetic:" will help them move it aside in their search; "cosmetic:" helps deciding whether to apply the patch and to which tree; etc. > I'm new here, and I'm not sure this kind of update is mandatory. > I will appreciate any advice. No problem. > Best Regards > Masahiro Yamada Amicalement,
Hello Albert, Thanks for your advice. > So... how about a V3 with a commit summary of "cosmetic: arm: fix > comments in arch/arm/lib/crt0.S" ? People reading the summary for no I posted a v3 patch as suggested. Best Regard, Masahiro Yamada
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S b/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S index a9657d1..a5bffb8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S +++ b/arch/arm/lib/crt0.S @@ -97,13 +97,13 @@ ENTRY(_main) * 'here' but relocated. */ - ldr sp, [r8, #GD_START_ADDR_SP] /* r8 = gd->start_addr_sp */ + ldr sp, [r8, #GD_START_ADDR_SP] /* sp = gd->start_addr_sp */ bic sp, sp, #7 /* 8-byte alignment for ABI compliance */ ldr r8, [r8, #GD_BD] /* r8 = gd->bd */ sub r8, r8, #GD_SIZE /* new GD is below bd */ adr lr, here - ldr r0, [r8, #GD_RELOC_OFF] /* lr = gd->start_addr_sp */ + ldr r0, [r8, #GD_RELOC_OFF] /* r0 = gd->reloc_off */ add lr, lr, r0 ldr r0, [r8, #GD_RELOCADDR] /* r0 = gd->relocaddr */ b relocate_code
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> --- Changed for v2: - Fix one more comment arch/arm/lib/crt0.S | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)