On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:56:02 +0200, Paul Menzel <paulepan...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Dear Ben, > > > Am Donnerstag, den 14.04.2011, 11:13 -0700 schrieb Ben Widawsky: > > userspace to the forcewake reference count via debugfs. > > > > v2: > > use new spin_locks instead of struct_mutex > > in my opinion these remarks should not go into the commit message. > Reading the commit log the reader is not interested in what patch > iteration some change was introduced.
In principle, I differ. I appreciate knowing the evolution of a patch as it winds its way upstream. From those notes, I can infer what questions were asked, how much attention the patch received, what the major criticisms were and how they were addressed. Important insights should we ever need revisit the patch again later. In an ideal world, each of these would be expounded upon in the changelog itself so that we had a concise discussion of the what/why/how (and even who) addressing all the salient background points and debating the wisdom of the various approaches to fixing the problem, before describing the ins-and-out of the actual fix implemented. In this particular case, I agree (and had planned to drop them after seeing "v2: no change" ;-). After the discussion of why we need a spin lock in the opening patch, further mentioning of the mutex is then irrelevant. But Ben... I seemed to have missed the real reason why we need the spinlock. You have to remind me or else I will keep whining on like a broken record. ;-) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
