On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 21:24:18 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:15:49PM +0000, George Spelvin wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 19:38:26 +0100 Greh KH wrote; >> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 07:43:53PM +0300, Andrey Abramov wrote: >>>> Replace int type with size_t type of the size argument >>>> in the swap function, also affect all its dependencies. >>> >>> This says _what_ the patch does, but it gives no clue as to _why_ you >>> are doing this. Neither did your 0/5 patch :( >>> >>> Why make this change? Nothing afterward depends on it from what I can >>> tell, so why is it needed? >> >> It's just a minor cleanup, making things less surprising for future >> programmers. As I wrote in a comment in my patches, using a signed type >> for an object size is definitely a wart; ever since C89 it's expected >> you'd use size_t for the purpose. > > You did not say that in this commit log :) Just to clarify: Not My Patch. I approve, but it's Andrey's patch. Your point is taken that the commit message needs to be improved to explain why. I just answered because it wasn't clear how much of your question was rhetorical. > If you think it is a wart, wonderful, yes, let's fix it up. But again, > a changelog comment should explain _why_ a commit is needed, not _what_ > it does, as we can see from the diff itself exactly what the commit > does. It was so obvious to me that I didn't question it, but you have a good point and I'm sure Andrey can clarify. Thanks for the attention! _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
