On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:08:33AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The patch looks fine to me, and I'm also fine with merging it ASAP. > > But the patch subject and commit message are not very descriptive. > > How is the commit message not descriptive? The first sentence > summarises exactly what the change does. The last says why it > is required. In the middle are some details. foo change is about as useless as a subject could be. "fs: idempotent d_delete" from your old tree was much better. As far as the commit message is concerned I think the most important bit is that we do not call it from prune_one_dentry anymore, which is the things that might matter to any complex filesystem maintainer looking at the changelog. The other things I didn't like was the introductionary blurb, but from reading the answer to the previous comment is seems like that wsn't intentional anyway. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
