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

From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 15:52:26 EST

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 ]


[ 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at