Messages in this thread | | | From | Jon Maxwell <> | Date | Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:40:28 +1000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] Series to improve setsockopt() TCP_USER_TIMEOUT accuracy |
| |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 07/16/2018 09:15 PM, Jon Maxwell wrote: >> This is a patch series based on: >> >> Jon Maxwell (3): >> [PATCH net-next 1/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs >> [PATCH net-next v1 2/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs >> [PATCH net-next v1 3/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs > > This would have been nice to use meaningful titles for each patch, > instead of copy/pasting the first one ? > > Thanks ! > > >
This is my 1st time doing a patch series. Let me rebase and resubmit each with a more descriptive title.
But 1st do I still need to put the patch number in the series? Even if the title differs?
1) e.g:
Jon Maxwell (3): [PATCH net-next 1/3] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs [PATCH net-next 2/3] tcp: Add tcp_retransmit_stamp() helper [PATCH net-next 3/3] tcp: Add tcp_clamp_rto_to_user_timeout() to improve accuracy
2) or:
Jon Maxwell (3): [PATCH net-next] tcp: convert icsk_user_timeout from jiffies to msecs [PATCH net-next] tcp: Add tcp_retransmit_time() helper [PATCH net-next] tcp: Add tcp_clamp_rto_to_user_timeout() to improve TCP_USER_TIMEOUT accuracy
Which is preferred (1) or (2)? Are the above titles descriptive enough?
Regards
Jon
| |