Re: [ubuntu/jaunty] linux 2.6.28-11.39 (Accepted)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ubuntu/jaunty] linux 2.6.28-11.39 (Accepted)

Matt Zimmerman-3
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:22:40AM -0000, Tim Gardner wrote:
>   [ Alan Tull ]
>
>   * SAUCE: mx51: fix to1.1 in mxc_iomux_set_input
>     - LP: #348333
> [...]
>   * SAUCE: imx51: fec: fix cache operations for receive
>     - LP: #348333

These two changelog items reference the same bug number.  Was this
intentional?

--
 - mdz

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ubuntu/jaunty] linux 2.6.28-11.39 (Accepted)

Amit Kucheria-6
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:26:05PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:22:40AM -0000, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >   [ Alan Tull ]
> >
> >   * SAUCE: mx51: fix to1.1 in mxc_iomux_set_input
> >     - LP: #348333
> > [...]
> >   * SAUCE: imx51: fec: fix cache operations for receive
> >     - LP: #348333
>
> These two changelog items reference the same bug number.  Was this
> intentional?

Yes it was intentional.

It was a sequence of 4 patches from Freescale that fixes the network throughput bug #348333.

Should I have done it some other way?

Regards,
Amit

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || [hidden email]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ubuntu/jaunty] linux 2.6.28-11.39 (Accepted)

Matt Zimmerman-3
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 04:20:36PM +0300, Amit Kucheria wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:26:05PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:22:40AM -0000, Tim Gardner wrote:
> > >   [ Alan Tull ]
> > >
> > >   * SAUCE: mx51: fix to1.1 in mxc_iomux_set_input
> > >     - LP: #348333
> > > [...]
> > >   * SAUCE: imx51: fec: fix cache operations for receive
> > >     - LP: #348333
> >
> > These two changelog items reference the same bug number.  Was this
> > intentional?
>
> Yes it was intentional.
>
> It was a sequence of 4 patches from Freescale that fixes the network throughput bug #348333.
>
> Should I have done it some other way?

I think it is just a side effect of the way you generate the changelog, but
it is decidedly weird when compared to normal package changelogs.

Normally, if there is a single bug fix which requires multiple changes, they
will be listed together.

--
 - mdz

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ubuntu/jaunty] linux 2.6.28-11.39 (Accepted)

Tim Gardner-2
In reply to this post by Matt Zimmerman-3
Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:22:40AM -0000, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>   [ Alan Tull ]
>>
>>   * SAUCE: mx51: fix to1.1 in mxc_iomux_set_input
>>     - LP: #348333
>> [...]
>>   * SAUCE: imx51: fec: fix cache operations for receive
>>     - LP: #348333
>
> These two changelog items reference the same bug number.  Was this
> intentional?
>

Quite often a bug fix requires more then one commit, each of which has
the bug number referenced in the commit log. The kernel changelog is
automatically generated using the bug numbers from the commit log, hence
the reason that there are multiple references to the same bug number.
I've had indications from folks that they prefer it this way (e.g. each
changelog entry has a bug reference) as opposed to multiple
commit/changelog entries with only one bug number.

rtg
--
Tim Gardner [hidden email]

--
kernel-team mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team