Re: [GIT PULL] TPM DEVICE DRIVER: for-next-tpm-v7.3-rc6

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 09:10:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 at 22:41, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull these bug fixes, which have landed after v7.3-rc1.
> 
> Jarkko, I've asked you before: please write an explanation for your
> pull requests.
> 
> "Please pull" is not a reason to pull. The "which landed after
> v7.3-rc1" is also not talking about what they do.
> 
> The tag contains three lines of text, and none of those lines are in
> the least helpful or relevant to the contents of the pull.

I do remember that you've said about this a few times. 

> 
> It doesn't have to be much. For simple driver fixes it can sometimes
> be as trivial as just "Misc trivial fixes". But in this case it
> clearly could have been something like "Fix tpm error handling and
> buffer size bugs". Merge messages and pull requests  don't need the
> _details_ - those are in the individual commits - but they should have
> a high-level "what happened" overview.

I meditated for a while before answering.

It's best to not do what I've done or try to fix it. Nothing works;
neither me nor the process...

I'll start faithfully writing cover letters progressively on side
while reviewing. That resolves about 75% of "what words to use"
and that type of stuff.

I mean I'm also right now zeroing my hard effort from code reviews
by not writing down the facts when they are still are fresh.

> 
> And this pull request is actively hard to parse. The subject line says
> "for-next". So I have to look at an email that is actively *trying* to
> make it hard for me to decide whether I should pull and gives me *no*
> information at all about what it contains.

I'll change it to:

"[GIT PULL] TPM DEVICE DRIVER changes for vX.Y.Z-rcW"

> 
> Be better. Please.
> 
>                 LInus

I'll do exactly what said above I will do, which I hope will equal to
that :-)

Br, Jarkko