> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Elena Reshetova wrote: > > > Subject: kernel: convert futex_pi_state.refcount from atomic_t to refcount_t > > Several people including myself told you already, that subjects consist of > > SUBSYSTEMPREFIX: Concise description > > It's easy enough to figure the prefix out by looking at the output of 'git > log path/of/changed/file'. Ok, I will try this from now on. I didn't think of it, but was trying to figure it based on general location and meaning (obviously wrong). > > Concise descriptions are not lengthy sentences with implementation > details. They should merily describe the problem/concept of change. The > details go into the changelog. IOW, something like: > > "PROPERPREFIX: Convert to refcount API" > > would be sufficient. OK, will fix. > > > refcount_t type and corresponding API should be > > used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as > > a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental > > refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free > > situations. > > Copying the same sentence over and over avoids thinking about a proper > changelog, right? You fail to explain, how you come to the conclusion that > futex_pi_state.refcount is a pure reference counter (aside of the name) and > therefor can be safely converted to refcount_t. OK, this is not very useful for many cases. Yes, I am using automated log on these patches, because I used to have 240 of them and writing manual logs for them would be fun. Moreover, in many cases, writing manual logs don't bring any value since I would have to repeat the same things all over again: xyz conversions was found by using *.cocci pattern first, then looked at manually and it looked like a standard reference counter that frees the things after calling refcount_dec_and_test() (or its variation with lock which is rare). Other things also looked correct, like I didn't see increments from zero, counter starts at 1 etc. I would really have to repeat the same thing in each changelog. Does it really bring value? Best Regards, Elena. > > Other than that, the patch itself is fine. > > Thanks, > > tglx
