linux-kernel - Re: [v2] i2c: busses: remove duplicate dev

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: <2e913d6d-fe20-1f0f-620c-ec37dc1a9195@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 22:30:58 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@...il.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Patrick Williams <alpawi@...zon.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Adamski <krzysztof.adamski@...ia.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        George Cherian <gcherian@...vell.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] i2c: busses: remove duplicate dev_err()

>>> it will print an error message by itself when platform_get_irq()
>>> goes wrong. so don't need dev_err() in here again.
>>
>> I suggest to improve the commit message considerably.
>
> I suggest you ignore Markus' suggestion.
>
> The commit message is OK.

I would appreciate if such a view can be reconsidered.

I got used to looking at information which can be provided there.
Thus I occasionally notice further change possibilities
also at this place.

Examples:
* Should the first word in English sentences start with a capital letter?

* Which value do you give to an imperative wording in the change description?

* Will an other word order become helpful here?

* Can it be relevant to refer to questionable error messages
  instead of the mentioned function name?


> The subject _could_ have included "platform_get_irq" something like
>
> Subject: [PATCH v2] i2c: busses: Remove platform_get_irq()'s duplicated dev_err()

I find such a suggestion for a patch subject also a bit nicer.


> but I believe it's not important enough to redo.

Will your idea be picked up for the final commit title?

Regards,
Markus