Re:Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area

[Bernard]

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
Date: 2020-05-12 19:56:49
To:  Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx>,Bernard Zhao <bernard@xxxxxxxx>,linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:  linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,opensource.kernel@xxxxxxxx,Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>,Kukjin Kim <kgene@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area>
>
>On 5/12/20 12:40 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> Maybe dmc->df->lock seems not needed to protect "if (ret)
>>> & dev_warn" branch. Maybe this change speed up the code a bit.
>> 
>> I suggest to improve also this commit message.
>> 
>> * Please reduce uncertainty.
>> 
>> * An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it?
>>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=152036d1379ffd6985262743dcf6b0f9c75f83a4#n151
>> 
>> * Will it be more appropriate to refer to the transformation âReduce the lock scopeâ?
>> 
>> * Would you like to add the tag âFixesâ to the change description?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Markus
>> 
>
>Thank you Markus for providing to Bernard helpful suggestions.
>
>@Bernard please read the link above and send v3
>
>Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ
>handler' for the subject header would be better.
>Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a
>bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value or
>printing.
>
>Regards,

>Lukasz

Sure, thank you both Markus & Lukasz for your helpful suggestions, I will read the content
of the link in detail and use that preferred format in my future subsequent submissions.

Regards,
Bernard