Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:32:25 -0500 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/6] fs: d_delete change |
| |
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.
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.
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.
| |