linux-kernel - Re: backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAOMGZ=F8BJA0w7oOpKCHRDTFM-=Hm6GQdW-GcdCasWP4i_B--g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:37:49 +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: backlight-tosa: Delete owner assignment

On 15 August 2016 at 15:25, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>> The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I have got an other impression.
>
> Do you want that I add any more background information to the
> commit message?

No, the rest of the commit message is fine. I was only concerned about
the patch title (the first line) since that's what appears frequently
in patch lists (cgit, shortlogs, email/archives), etc.

>> How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"?
>
> Will the underlined key word trigger any related software
> development concerns?

No, the emphasis was just for the email, I wouldn't put that in the
actual commit log.

> Would another look be needed on how the usage of the mentioned data
> structure element was reduced over time?

No, it's fine, it's really just about the patch title :-) Thanks,


Vegard