Re: [patch 4/6] fs: d_delete change

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/