[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180717111233.5jsxqfyveibe6b7j@mwanda>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:12:33 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Springer <rspringer@...gle.com>,
John Joseph <jnjoseph@...gle.com>,
Ben Chan <benchan@...omium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Zhongze Hu <frankhu@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Simon Que <sque@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/32] staging: gasket: gasket_wait_with_reschedule
return when condition hit
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 01:13:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:09:06PM -0700, Todd Poynor wrote:
> > From: Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>
> >
> > Return right away instead of break out of while and then return.
> >
>
Btw, I wasn't going to complain about this but since Greg is being extra
critical about commit messages that don't explain *why* it just creates
an environment why I also feel free to complain... I couldn't
understand what this commit does without looking at the code in context.
A possible commit message here is:
[PATCH 12/32] staging: gasket: small cleanup in gasket_wait_with_reschedule()
gasket_wait_with_reschedule() is a little more clear if we just return
directly.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists