[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b59b9dab-fddc-8e50-cd0b-75eceab5d256@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:08:13 +0100
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"K . Y . Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] drivers: hv: remove redundant assignment to pointer
primary_channel
On 16/04/2020 11:02, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We have this discussion over and over. I always say it helps to have
> the commit mentioned in the commit message but it's not a Fixes tag.
> So I think that the commit message should say something like
> "commit 1234234 ("blah blah") removed some code so this variable isn't
> used any more". I think it helps the review process. But then if we
> mention the commit everyone says to use the Fixes tag.
>
> It turns out if you leave out the commit entirely then people still
> complain but a lot less frequently. It shouldn't work that way but
> reviewers are illogical.
Yep, to my knowledge the policy for this kind of commit is not described
in any documentation, so it's ambiguous. Either way, one can't win
without it being properly codified.
Colin
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists