Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] pci: Re-use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:12:22PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 12:19 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 03:27:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:40 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:59:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > ...instead of open coding its functionality.
> > > > 
> > > > Same comment about making the changelog complete, independent of
> > > > the
> > > > subject.
> > > 
> > > Any suggestion how it would look like? (Same question for previous
> > > comment)
> > 
> >   PCI: Re-use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper
> > 
> >   Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its
> >   functionality.
> > 
> > The usual document structure is something like:
> > 
> >   TITLE
> > 
> >   This abstract contains a summary of the entire document, in a few
> >   paragraphs of complete sentences.
> > 
> > Where "TITLE" makes sense all by itself, even without reading the
> > body, and "Body" is a complete statement that also makes sense all by
> > itself without having to read "TITLE" first.
> > 
> 
> Thank you for a hint!
> 
> > Granted, it's trivial, but following the convention improves
> > readability slightly because it fits the reader's expectations.
> 
> > When the body is "...instead of open coding its functionality", it's a
> > bit of a hiccup because I have to start over and look back up to the
> > title to re-read the thing as a whole.
> 
> OK, I got your point, though I don't like duplication in the subject and
> body.

Ah, I see.  I think of the subject and the body as serving two
distinct purposes, so for me there's no issue even if they happen to
contain exactly the same text.

Bjorn