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

[Nick Piggin]

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.

--
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/