On Thursday, 12 June 2025 13:30:42 CEST Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Janusz, > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 11:45:46AM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 June 2025 11:35:31 CEST Jani Nikula wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Janusz Krzysztofik > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 11 June 2025 22:54:40 CEST Andi Shyti wrote: > > > >> Hi Nitin, > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 03:45:30PM +0000, Gote, Nitin R wrote: > > > >> > [...] > > > >> > > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/ring_submission: Fix timeline left held > > > >> > > on VMA alloc > > > >> > > error > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Generally, it's preferred to use "drm/i915/gt:" file path over > > > >> > "drm/i915/ring_submission:" file name in the commit title. > > > >> > > > >> good observation, I missed it. I agree with Nitin on this, it can > > > >> be fixed before merging. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure. I found no single word on the *subsystem* component of > > > > the > > > > canonical patch format subject line (or commit message) expected to > > > > reflect > > > > any directory structure in case of DRM. > > > > > > It's not about the directory structure, though, but rather about > > > (admittedly unwritten) conventions. Usually about driver components, > > > features or platforms. > > > > > > See: > > > > > > $ git log --since={5years} --no-merges --pretty=%s -- "<PATH>" | sed > > > 's/:.*//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > > > > > > Where "<PATH>" is drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ring_submission.c or > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt. > > > > > > "ring" or "submission" is just not there in the prefix, at all. > > > > I see. Is there a convention for designating old, pre-execlists > > *platforms* > > as affected subsystem / area? Or is describing it in the summary phrase of > > the commit message the only way? > > it's an unwritten rule and my feeling is that these tings take > their own track without anyone deciding it officially. > > Indeed every community has its own way of doing it. As you know > already, in i915 we have always used: > > drm/i915: > drm/i915/gt: > drm/i915/gem: > drm/i915/gt/guc: (or drm/i915/guc:) > drm/i915/display: > ...
I find this convention as more oriented on designating an area of responsibility rather than a component / feature / platform that is affected / fixed. My feeling is that it should rather be the latter. Anyway, in this particular case I propose to follow the current convention and add the word 'legacy' to the summary phrase, as I suggested before, unless you are able to propose something better. We may discuss the convention doubts independently. Thanks, Janusz > > pointing to the directory rather than the topic or the file. > > In my opinion using "ring_submission:" is not wrong and it makes > sense, but it's out of the ordinary and this would be the only > patch doing it. > > That's why this title is a little odd, unless we all agree to > change and set a convention. > > Thanks, > Andi >
