[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADkSEUjxL11fjj4tsxnF6FFtWDP0+Sru45H1sVyOYxPX_S5-3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:56:57 -0800
From: Ethan Nelson-Moore <enelsonmoore@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@...nel.org>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>, Thomas Mühlbacher <tmuehlbacher@...teo.net>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: remove unnecessary module_init/exit functions
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 1:56 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> You need to be careful with commit messages. Reviewers read them, and
> think about the implications of what they say. As a result, you wasted
> some of my time looking for a driver which did not have an
> module_exit, and wondering if there was a legitimate reason for not
> having it, and had you just broken it....
Sorry about that. Should I send another version with a better commit
message or is this patch okay the way it is?
Ethan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists