From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] fs: d_delete change Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:32:25 -0500 Message-ID: <20101110163224.GB15130@infradead.org> References: <20101109124610.GB11477@amd> <20101109130133.GE11477@amd> <20101109162516.GB6217@infradead.org> <20101109220833.GG3246@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:51453 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756824Ab0KJQc2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:32:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101109220833.GG3246@amd> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. 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. 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.