From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37494)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Spbig-0005XT-Gy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:59:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1SpbiZ-0003Sz-R4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:59:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33566)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1SpbiZ-0003Sm-J8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:59:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4FFFE363.9030903@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:59:15 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1341775234.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com>
	<cb6fdbe6a2451359e56292d32818414db473bfdd.1341775234.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com>
	<4FFD7663.8030102@redhat.com>
	<CAAu8pHuX+N9LS8bhLBU5sDPTXYyKTQ521F7j16_wVYkaqddT+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHuX+N9LS8bhLBU5sDPTXYyKTQ521F7j16_wVYkaqddT+w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] bitops: fix types
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: blueswirl@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 12.07.2012 22:21, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwirbel@gmail.com:
>>> From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or
>>> 'int'. Adjust asserts.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
>>
>> I haven't followed the original discussion and therefore don't know what
>> the controversy is about (nor do I feel like reading it up), but if
>> there is no consensus, I would expect even more than already for normal
>> patches that the commit message doesn't only state the obvious change,
>> but also the reasons for the change.
>>
>> This message isn't much different from the famous "i++; /* increase i by
>> one */" code comment.
> 
> The message could be improved by vast amounts, but in my view it is
> sufficient for such a simple change.

No, it's not. The change is simple (so you don't necessarily need to
repeat what has changed, I see it in the diff), but the reasons aren't
obvious. So please state them even for totally simple mechanical changes.

Kevin