[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMGZ=EWsO_pRg+s+hnPmwRePcrijFK3v+SRKTizfbqyY83iqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:39:06 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Janitors List <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment
On 15 August 2016 at 13:12, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.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).
(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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists