On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:28 PM Ralph Boehme <slow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 05.10.21 um 20:43 schrieb Steve French:
> > Typically kernel style encourages even a brief description in all
> > changesets (even trivial ones) e.g.
> >
> > "Simplifies message parsing slightly. No change in behavior"
>
> Sure, I could add this. Otoh
>
> bcf130f9dfbaccf91376a44b18f51ed8007840d6
>
> :)
>
> To me it doesn't make sense.
The patch submission guidelines for the kernel (see
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst) are not too bad to
understand (you can see why slightly more description is needed from
some examples mentioned there), and seem reasonably logical. Also
checkpatch already auto-verifies a few of the things mentioned in the
submitting-patches guidelines.
Note that your example is an old patch (from 10 years ago); rules have
gotten a bit stricter. Here is a more recent patch from the same
committer, note that he no longer uses the minimalist description ("No
change in behavior") see below (and another example from same
committer commit 4b03d99794eeed27650597a886247c6427ce1055)
commit ebd9d2c2f5a7ebaaed2d7bb4dee148755f46033d
Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Apr 16 14:00:17 2021 -0400
nfsd: reshuffle some code
No change in behavior, I'm just moving some code around to avoid forward
references in a following patch.
(To do someday: figure out how to split up nfs4state.c. It's big and
disorganized.)
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
Steve
