lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 4/6] fs: d_delete change
    On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:32:25AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:08:33AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > > The patch looks fine to me, and I'm also fine with merging it ASAP.
    > > > But the patch subject and commit message are not very descriptive.
    > >
    > > How is the commit message not descriptive? The first sentence
    > > summarises exactly what the change does. The last says why it
    > > is required. In the middle are some details.
    >
    > foo change is about as useless as a subject could be.
    >
    > "fs: idempotent d_delete" from your old tree was much better.

    It's not only idempotent, though, so I thought it was better to
    change it. Seeing as the change could not be summarised in a
    changelog, at least the ambiguous subject would draw the reader
    to look at the changelog.


    > As far as the commit message is concerned I think the most important
    > bit is that we do not call it from prune_one_dentry anymore, which is
    > the things that might matter to any complex filesystem maintainer
    > looking at the changelog.

    See: first sentence of the changelog.


    > The other things I didn't like was the introductionary blurb, but from
    > reading the answer to the previous comment is seems like that wsn't
    > intentional anyway.

    Right, I'll switch to a different way of commenting that git-am
    does not pick up.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-11 01:29    [W:4.020 / U:0.496 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site