From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753000AbcHONoo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	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
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:44:41 -0400
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:46:12 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Cc: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Janitors List <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment
Message-ID: <20160815134612.GH25844@dell>
References: <efe9964f-c907-305c-b75e-32a4139d1edd@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CAOMGZ=EWsO_pRg+s+hnPmwRePcrijFK3v+SRKTizfbqyY83iqQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAOMGZ=EWsO_pRg+s+hnPmwRePcrijFK3v+SRKTizfbqyY83iqQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
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
> <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > 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