linux-kernel - Re: GPU-DRM-QXL: Move three assignments in qxl_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:23:06 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
Cc:     Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-QXL: Move three assignments in qxl_device_init()

>> I am trying to improve various open issues also in Linux source files.
>>
> That the fact that you see issues (in these particular cases) while
> others do not

I guess that the discussed "story" affects more challenges in communication
and different opinions about where to invest software development attention.

> indicates that the commit summary could be explained better.

I imagine that there are a few improvement possibilities left over.

> A good commit summary should provide enough information to do that

This advice is generally fine.

> and make people _want_ the patch.

I guess that this expectation can become a research topic for some knowledge fields,
can't it?

There are update suggestion where the probability for acceptance is higher
than for others.

Some maintainers have got their own difficulties with changes when they categorise
them as "ordinary clean-up".

> From my limited experience through your patches (just skimmed a few)

Thanks for your general interest.

> you seems to be describing what the patch does

My collection of update suggestions is evolving over some source code search patterns.

I find that this approach fits to the recommended imperative wording style
according to document "SubmittingPatches", doesn't it?

I dared also some deviations or variations already.

> as opposed to why it does it and why should one find it interesting/wanted.

I am trying to express also this information to some degree.

Regards,
Markus