Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] mm/shmem: add `const` to lots of pointer parameters

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 01.09.25 10:26, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:20 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01.09.25 10:05, Max Kellermann wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 9:33 AM Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 11:39:07AM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
>>>>> For improved const-correctness.
>>>>
>>>> It is not a proper commit message.
>>>
>>> I believe it is proper for something as trivial as this. I think
>>> adding more text would just be noise, only wasting the time of people
>>> reading it. But that is a matter of perspective: I expect every
>>> competent C developer to know the concept of const-correctness.
>>>
>>> Do you believe the commit message of 29cfe7556bfd ("mm: constify more
>>> page/folio tests") is "proper"?
>>>
>>
>> "Constify shmem related test functions for improved const-correctness."
> 
> Mentioning "shmem" adds no information because that is already
> mentioned in the subject. "Constify" is just as redundant, it's the
> same as "adding const".
> 
> The only new piece of information here is "test". If you want, I can
> change the subject to "mm/shmem: add `const` to pointer parameters of
> test functions" and leave the body. Would that make the commit message
> "proper", or do you insist on having redundant information in the
> body?

We usually write complete sentences, and there is nothing wrong with 
repeating what the subject says.

All the time it takes you to argue here would be better used improving 
your patch descriptions.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb