On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 12:19 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 03:27:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:40 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:59:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ...instead of open coding its functionality. > > > > > > Same comment about making the changelog complete, independent of > > > the > > > subject. > > > > Any suggestion how it would look like? (Same question for previous > > comment) > > PCI: Re-use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper > > Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its > functionality. > > The usual document structure is something like: > > TITLE > > This abstract contains a summary of the entire document, in a few > paragraphs of complete sentences. > > Where "TITLE" makes sense all by itself, even without reading the > body, and "Body" is a complete statement that also makes sense all by > itself without having to read "TITLE" first. > Thank you for a hint! > Granted, it's trivial, but following the convention improves > readability slightly because it fits the reader's expectations. > When the body is "...instead of open coding its functionality", it's a > bit of a hiccup because I have to start over and look back up to the > title to re-read the thing as a whole. OK, I got your point, though I don't like duplication in the subject and body. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
