[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b4e9eb17-7c5a-15ed-5ff7-2334ff13e9d7@web.de>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 06:51:42 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>,
Vyacheslav Dubeyko <Vyacheslav.Dubeyko@...t.com>
Subject: Re: nilfs2: Fix reference count leak in
nilfs_sysfs_create_snapshot_group()
> I think there is only one object that can be modified in this function,
Such a view can be reasonable.
> so I didn't mention it.
I suggest to reconsider the conclusion.
>> I guess that an imperative wording is preferred also for this change description.
>
> This sentence is referenced from the code comment, so I haven't change it.
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc7/source/lib/kobject.c#L459
I find that that there are further possibilities to consider for improvements
around the presented commit message (even after the mentioned copy
from the function description of this programming interface).
>> How do you think about to combine this update step together with
>> “nilfs2: Fix reference count leak in nilfs_sysfs_create_device_group”
>> into a small patch series?
>
> I'd like to improve the similar issues after I reporting this bunch of bugs.
Did you find questionable implementation details with the help of an evolving
source code analysis tool?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists