From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> Date: 2020-05-12 19:56:49 To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx>,Bernard Zhao <bernard@xxxxxxxx>,linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,opensource.kernel@xxxxxxxx,Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>,Kukjin Kim <kgene@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area> > >On 5/12/20 12:40 PM, Markus Elfring wrote: >>> Maybe dmc->df->lock seems not needed to protect "if (ret) >>> & dev_warn" branch. Maybe this change speed up the code a bit. >> >> I suggest to improve also this commit message. >> >> * Please reduce uncertainty. >> >> * An imperative wording is probably preferred, isn't it? >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=152036d1379ffd6985262743dcf6b0f9c75f83a4#n151 >> >> * Will it be more appropriate to refer to the transformation “Reduce the lock scope”? >> >> * Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description? >> >> Regards, >> Markus >> > >Thank you Markus for providing to Bernard helpful suggestions. > >@Bernard please read the link above and send v3 > >Something like: 'memory/samsung: reduce protected code area in IRQ >handler' for the subject header would be better. >Then in the message explain (without 'maybe') that it will speed-up a >bit this IRQ processing and there is no need to protect return value or >printing. > >Regards, >Lukasz Sure, thank you both Markus & Lukasz for your helpful suggestions, I will read the content of the link in detail and use that preferred format in my future subsequent submissions. Regards, Bernard
