On 15 August 2016 at 15:25, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation. >> >> Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is >> virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the >> broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like >> naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code"; >> it serves no purpose. > > I have got an other impression. > > Do you want that I add any more background information to the > commit message? No, the rest of the commit message is fine. I was only concerned about the patch title (the first line) since that's what appears frequently in patch lists (cgit, shortlogs, email/archives), etc. >> How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"? > > Will the underlined key word trigger any related software > development concerns? No, the emphasis was just for the email, I wouldn't put that in the actual commit log. > Would another look be needed on how the usage of the mentioned data > structure element was reduced over time? No, it's fine, it's really just about the patch title :-) Thanks, Vegard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
