lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectImpact: (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?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-16 02:09    [W:0.100 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site