From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] scsi_debug: use likely hints on fast path Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:33:11 -0700 Message-ID: <57204F17.3010605@sandisk.com> References: <1461600999-28893-1-git-send-email-dgilbert@interlog.com> <1461600999-28893-8-git-send-email-dgilbert@interlog.com> <571FE840.1010304@sandisk.com> <57204D37.3050302@interlog.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bl2on0073.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.169.73]:29312 "EHLO na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752510AbcD0FdR (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 01:33:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <57204D37.3050302@interlog.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "dgilbert@interlog.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "tomas.winkler@intel.com" , "emilne@redhat.com" On 04/26/16 22:25, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > Do all re-factorings of code need a patch description? Describing all changes makes the job of a reviewer easier because if all changes have been described the reviewer only has to verify the changes against the patch description instead of additionally having to figure out the purpose of changes that have not been described. Bart.