From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment Message-Id: <20160815134612.GH25844@dell> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Vegard Nossum Cc: SF Markus Elfring , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Jingoo Han , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , Kernel Janitors List , Julia Lawall On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On 15 August 2016 at 13:12, SF Markus Elfring > wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:03:29 +0200 > > > > The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation. >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is > virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the > broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like > naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code"; it serves no > purpose. >=20 > How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"? This > immediately communicates the reason for/intent of the patch (there is > unnecessary code, thus we can simplify it). backlight-tosa: Do not manually assign THIS_MODULE to .owner This is unnecessary because ... > (Sorry about singling out this patch and the apparent bikeshedding, > this comment obviously applies to a lot of patches by a lot of > authors!) >=20 > Thanks, >=20 >=20 > Vegard --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment Message-Id: <20160815134612.GH25844@dell> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Vegard Nossum Cc: SF Markus Elfring , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Jingoo Han , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , Kernel Janitors List , Julia Lawall On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On 15 August 2016 at 13:12, SF Markus Elfring > wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:03:29 +0200 > > > > The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation. >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is > virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the > broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like > naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code"; it serves no > purpose. >=20 > How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"? This > immediately communicates the reason for/intent of the patch (there is > unnecessary code, thus we can simplify it). backlight-tosa: Do not manually assign THIS_MODULE to .owner This is unnecessary because ... > (Sorry about singling out this patch and the apparent bikeshedding, > this comment obviously applies to a lot of patches by a lot of > authors!) >=20 > Thanks, >=20 >=20 > Vegard --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753000AbcHONoo (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:44:44 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:37447 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752796AbcHONol (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:44:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:46:12 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Vegard Nossum Cc: SF Markus Elfring , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Jingoo Han , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , Kernel Janitors List , Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment Message-ID: <20160815134612.GH25844@dell> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On 15 August 2016 at 13:12, SF Markus Elfring > wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring > > Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:03:29 +0200 > > > > The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation. > > Hi, > > Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is > virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the > broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like > naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code"; it serves no > purpose. > > How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"? This > immediately communicates the reason for/intent of the patch (there is > unnecessary code, thus we can simplify it). backlight-tosa: Do not manually assign THIS_MODULE to .owner This is unnecessary because ... > (Sorry about singling out this patch and the apparent bikeshedding, > this comment obviously applies to a lot of patches by a lot of > authors!) > > Thanks, > > > Vegard -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog