[PATCH] drm/i915/ring_submission: Fix timeline left held on VMA alloc error

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 June 2025 22:54:40 CEST Andi Shyti wrote:
>> Hi Nitin,
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 03:45:30PM +0000, Gote, Nitin R wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/ring_submission: Fix timeline left held on VMA alloc
>> > > error
>> > >
>> > 
>> > Generally, it's preferred to use "drm/i915/gt:" file path over "drm/i915/ring_submission:"  file name in the commit title.
>> 
>> good observation, I missed it. I agree with Nitin on this, it can
>> be fixed before merging.
>
> I'm not sure.  I found no single word on the *subsystem* component of the 
> canonical patch format subject line (or commit message) expected to reflect 
> any directory structure in case of DRM.

It's not about the directory structure, though, but rather about
(admittedly unwritten) conventions. Usually about driver components,
features or platforms.

See:

$ git log --since={5years} --no-merges --pretty=%s -- "<PATH>" | sed 's/:.*//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn

Where "<PATH>" is drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ring_submission.c or
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt.

"ring" or "submission" is just not there in the prefix, at all.


BR,
Jani.

> However, if you think it should for 
> some reason, or you just don't recognize i915 ring submission as a good 
> candidate for the subsystem component of the commit message, then I'm OK with 
> drm/i915/gt, but then, the summary phrase of the commit message seems too 
> general for the whole GT subsystem, not pointing to ring submission as the 
> only submission method out of the three that's affected, and needs to be 
> rephrased, I believe, while still kept short enough.  Maybe "Fix *legacy* 
> timeline held on VMA alloc error" (with the 'left' word dropped)?
>
> Thanks,
> Janusz
>
>> 
>> Andi
>> 
>
>
>
>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel