> I'm still not happy at all. > You failed the address the specific thing I asked to be fixed. > In patch #4, the rename, you just say in your commit message > that you are "renaming". > But in the qedr/main.c part of the change, you are _REMOVING_ > the include. > And I said that can't be right if all you are doing is renaming the > files. It's a redundant inclusion as qedr.h already includes the interface file and gets included in turn by main.c. We're not REALLY changing anything significant here; It's a very minor cleanup as part of the patch. > So either fix that part of the change to actually rename the include > header, rather than removing the include, or explain _IN DETAIL_ in > the commit log message why removing it is the right thing to do and > especially _WHY_ it is appropriate for it to be done as part of the > renaming patch. I can't really say I understand who would benefit from adding "while at it remove redundant inclusion of header file" to the commit log message [And even less from splitting this into its own patch]. But you're the chief; so we will. > Can you understand how inconsistent it is to have a patch that says > nothing more than "I'm renaming files" and yet have other stuff > happening? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
