Re: [PATCH 17/17] xen: disable MSI

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > hm, i have to concur. Too often it ends up splitting attention away 
> > from the title of the commit. I do reject (or fix up) bad impact 
> > lines - will stop doing them altogether if you think there's a net 
> > downside to them ...
>
> I actually think that if there is a good reason for them, they can stay. 
>
> Just don't make it one of those "every commit that goes through me has to 
> have one".
>
> Pu another way: if they actually add value in highlighting the commits 
> that _should_ stand out, then hey, by all means, keep such ones. I would 
> not at all object if it was an issue of 
>
>  [ Impact: fix bugzilla entry 455123 ]
>
> or
>
>  [ Impact: fix user-triggerable oops ]

Ideally "Impact" is pointless if you are otherwise writing a clear, 
concise commit description.  "Fixes user-triggerable oops" on a line by 
itself is clear enough, and is how I've been writing descriptions for a 
while.

People with the urge to add "Impact:" to every commit wind up either 
being redundant, or for small patches, having the entire ex-Subject 
commit description be "Impact: blah blah blah"

If IOW, if the impact is not already clear, you're doing something 
wrong, and "Impact" is not necessarily going to fix that.

	Jeff



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/