On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 08:56:26PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> If the second exfat_get_dentry() call fails then we need to release > >>> "old_bh" before returning. There is a similar bug in exfat_move_file(). > >> > >> Would you like to convert any information from this change description > >> into an imperative wording? > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=5b14671be58d0084e7e2d1cc9c2c36a94467f6e0#n151 > > > > I really feel like imperative doesn't add anything. I understand that > > some people feel really strongly about it, but I don't know why. It > > doesn't make commit messages more understandable. > > Do you insist to deviate from the given guideline? > > > > The important thing is that the problem is clear, the fix is clear and > > the runtime impact is clear. > > I have got further ideas to improve also this commit message. > I am curious if other contributors would like to add another bit of > patch review. You're nitpicking commit messages. This is exactly the kind of thing which drives people away. Dan's commit message is fine. It's actually hilarious because your emails are so unclear that I can't understand them. I have no idea what "collateral evolution" means and yet you use it in almost every email. Why can't you use the same terminology the rest of us use?
