On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:36:01AM +0000, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 00:03 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-11-02 23:52:45) > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Joonas Lahtinen > > > <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 15:56 -0700, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote: > > > > > We currently have two module parameters that control GuC: > > > > > "enable_guc_loading" and "enable_guc_submission". > > > > > Whenever we need i915_modparams.enable_guc_submission=1, we also need > > > > > enable_guc_loading=1. > > > > > We also need enable_guc_loading=1 when we want to verify the HuC, > > > > > which is every time we have a HuC (but all platforms with HuC have a > > > > > GuC and viceversa). > > > > > > > > Long lines in commit message, please give a look at: > > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.13/process/submitting-patches.html > > > > > > > > Section "14) The canonical patch format". > > > > > > > > Then, about the patch. I think the commit message should be more clear > > > > about the fact that if we have HuC firmware to be loaded, we need to > > > > have GuC to actually load it. So if an user wants to avoid the GuC from > > > > getting loaded, they must not have a HuC firmware to be loaded, in > > > > addition to not using GuC submission. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: Clarifying the commit message (Anusha) > > > > > > > > > > v3: Unify seq_puts messages, Re-factoring code as per review (Michal) > > > > > > > > > > v4: Rebase > > > > > > > > > > v5: Separating message unification into a separate patch > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.sriva...@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.ma...@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kam...@intel.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundare...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > Try to keep the tags in chronological order, so start with Suggested- > > > > by: (if any), Signed-off-by:, Cc: and so on. > > > > > > Could we agree on have > > > Suggested-by: > > > Cc: > > > Signed-off-by: > > > as the initial chronological order and then follow the chronological > > > > But CCs come after a s-o-b, because they are added after the commit. (I > > write some code, then think who might be interested; usually by looking > > at who previously worked on the same code). Then you also add new CCs > > later on based on review feedback; a comment on v1 gets a CC on v2. > > Bugzilla/reported-by/suggested-by are before since they presumably > > prompted the commit to be written in the first place (plus also they > > deserve extra credit for their effort in alerting us to the issue). > > Yeah, this is my reasoning too.
So it seems the chronological order differs from case to case from person to person. When I write a patch most of the times I have people in mind that I will cc. Like when I'm writing an email. cc: people that touch this code from last time cc: people that can help on review cc: people that introduced this error cc: people that will be futurely impacted by this change and then I sign-off on the end of the patch as I sign off in the end of a message. > > Also, when you add the machine assistance from Patchwork to > automatically spread tags from the cover letter (Acked-by, Reviewed-by > etc. and it's in the works, I understand). I don't quite see why we > would have only a portion of the tags in chronological order. > > If I respin a patch, it might already have: > > Bugzilla: > Suggested-by: > Signed-off-by: > Cc: > Cc: > Acked-by: > Reviewed-by: I really would like to have something like: Bugzilla: Suggested-by: Cc: Cc: Signed-off-by: Acked-by: Reviewed-by: This seems to be the most used in kernel. the most intuitive and the easier to read. The worst case this approach is creating is Signed-off: Cc: Cc: Cc: really ugly on the first patch imho. So, I doubt we can reach to an agreement. So let's agree at least in not enforce this chronological thing as a rule and let people use what ever they feel better. Specially because I don't see any other place where this is trying to get enforced like this. Thanks Signed-off: Rodrigo. > > By adding my Signed-off-by at the end and that's the only way to retain > that history information correctly. > > And it's an easy convention to follow for a developer. You only need to > to write above the automatically generated S-o-b, if you reference a > bug or attribute credit (because that's literally what happened first > in chronological order, too). From then on, you just append at the end. > > All the minutes spent thinking how to correctly order the tags can be > recouped as moar patches. > > Regards, Joonas > -- > Joonas Lahtinen > Open Source Technology Center > Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
