From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yHJgw6JvVzDrJm for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 04:19:08 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:18:58 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Mimi Zohar , Julia Lawall , Alexander Steffen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Corentin Labbe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , Kenneth Goldman , Michael Ellerman , Nayna Jain , Paul Mackerras , Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Stefan Berger Subject: Re: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions Message-ID: <20171018171858.3lcfr2kcp53fngwv@linux.intel.com> References: <1508238182.16112.475.camel@linux.intel.com> <1508244757.4234.60.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508253453.4234.81.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <9689f036-ba9f-d23b-cf89-c289bc308771@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018145735.lpzwakatsty7emlw@linux.intel.com> <351cf78a-14f6-c6e7-2902-048e7dc57a14@users.sourceforge.net> <20171018155946.e7ga7jyex6eia252@linux.intel.com> <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <55d76224-3019-6614-70ce-ba260bbcd54f@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:43:10PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Commit message should just describe in plain text what you are doing > > Did other contributors find the wording “Replace …” > > > > and why. > > and “… a bit safer according to the Linux coding style convention.” > sufficient often enough already? > > Which description would you find more appropriate for this change pattern? > > Regards, > Markus For 1/4 and 2/4: explain why the message can be omitted. Remove sentence about Coccinelle. That's all. 3/4: definitive NAK, too much noise compared to value. 4/4: this a good commit message. Requires a Tested-by before can be accepted, which I'm not able to give. Hope this helps. /Jarkko