From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 4/6] fs: d_delete change Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:27:02 +1100 Message-ID: <20101111002702.GA3477@amd> References: <20101109124610.GB11477@amd> <20101109130133.GE11477@amd> <20101109162516.GB6217@infradead.org> <20101109220833.GG3246@amd> <20101110163224.GB15130@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , Al Viro , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:14624 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756719Ab0KKA1H (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:27:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101110163224.GB15130@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:32:25AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. It's not only idempotent, though, so I thought it was better to change it. Seeing as the change could not be summarised in a changelog, at least the ambiguous subject would draw the reader to look at the changelog. > 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. See: first sentence of 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. Right, I'll switch to a different way of commenting that git-am does not pick up.