Dear Xiao, Thank you for taking care of these things. Some comments on minor things. Am 26.07.24 um 09:14 schrieb Xiao Ni: […]
Xiao Ni (14): mdadm/Grow: fix coverity issue CHECKED_RETURN mdadm/Grow: fix coverity issue RESOURCE_LEAK mdadm/Grow: fix coverity issue STRING_OVERFLOW mdadm/Incremental: fix coverity issues.
I’d remove the dot/period at the end
mdadm/mdmon: fix coverity issue CHECKED_RETURN mdadm/mdmon: fix coverity issue RESOURCE_LEAK mdadm/mdopen: fix coverity issue CHECKED_RETURN mdadm/mdopen: fix coverity issue STRING_OVERFLOW mdadm/mdstat: fix coverity issue CHECKED_RETURN mdadm/super0: fix coverity issue CHECKED_RETURN and EVALUATION_ORDER mdadm/super1: fix coverity issue CHECKED_RETURN mdadm/super1: fix coverity issue DEADCODE mdadm/super1: fix coverity issue EVALUATION_ORDER mdadm/super1: fix coverity issue RESOURCE_LEAK
In my opinion, naming the tool reporting the issue in the commit message summary is not beneficial, and I’d prefer to have more detail on the change in there. The tool could be named/credited in the commit message body.
Kind regards, Paul
