Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:10:39 +0300 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Impact: (was Re: [PATCH] update rwlock initialization for nat_table) |
| |
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:20:19AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > update rwlock initialization for nat_table > > > > Impact: clean up > > > > The commit e099a173573ce1ba171092aee7bb3c72ea686e59 > > (netfilter: netns nat: per-netns NAT table) renamed the > > nat_table from __nat_table to nat_table without updating the > > __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(__nat_table.lock). > > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com> > > Applied to net-2.6, thanks Steven. > > As Andrew mentioned this is a bug (albeit a "nano-bug" as you > called it :-) so I removed the Impact line in the commit > message when applying this.
Speaking of Impact: lines, is this a new fashion or what?
Looking at the ones which are already in official tree, they are either trivially duplicating Subject: line, or effectively duplicating Subject: line, or cover up for insufficiently informative (read: badly written) Subject: line, or simply useless.
Subject: sched: CPU remove deadlock fix Impact: fix possible deadlock in CPU hot-remove path
What prevented to write "Subject: sched: fix possible deadlock in CPU hot-remove path"?
AMD IOMMU: __unmap_single: check for bad_dma_address instead of 0 Impact: minor fix
Well...
I have an idea on how to make them remotely useful, but can we agree that there is a problem arising here?
| |