[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200825170955.GX4353@alley>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:09:55 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7][next] printk: ringbuffer: rename
DESC_COMMITTED_MASK flag
On Mon 2020-08-24 12:41:32, John Ogness wrote:
> The flag DESC_COMMITTED_MASK has a much longer name compared to the
> other state flags and also is in past tense form, rather than in
> command form. Rename the flag to DESC_COMMIT_MASK in order to match
> the other state flags.
I am not a native speaker. But the command form sounds a bit misleading to me.
I see that the new name will make more sense after adding the state "FINAL".
But "FINAL" will not be a command form either.
I am fine with the change but I would prefer a better commit message.
What about something like?
"A comming support for continuous lines will allow to reopen records
with DESC_COMMITTED_MASK set. As a result, the flag will not longer
describe the final committed state. Rename it to DESC_COMMIT_MASK
as a preparation step."
With the updated commit message:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists