From: SF Markus Elfring <hidden> Date: 2016-08-15 11:12:59
From: Markus Elfring <redacted>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:03:29 +0200
The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <redacted>
---
drivers/video/backlight/tosa_bl.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
On 15 August 2016 at 13:12, SF Markus Elfring
[off-list ref] wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <redacted>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:03:29 +0200
The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation.
Hi,
Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is
virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the
broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like
naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code"; it serves no
purpose.
How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"? This
immediately communicates the reason for/intent of the patch (there is
unnecessary code, thus we can simplify it).
(Sorry about singling out this patch and the apparent bikeshedding,
this comment obviously applies to a lot of patches by a lot of
authors!)
Thanks,
Vegard
From: SF Markus Elfring <hidden> Date: 2016-08-15 13:25:54
quoted
The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation.
Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is
virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the
broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like
naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code";
it serves no purpose.
I have got an other impression.
Do you want that I add any more background information to the
commit message?
How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"?
Will the underlined key word trigger any related software
development concerns?
Would another look be needed on how the usage of the mentioned data
structure element was reduced over time?
Regards,
Markus
On 15 August 2016 at 15:25, SF Markus Elfring
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation.
Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is
virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the
broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like
naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code";
it serves no purpose.
I have got an other impression.
Do you want that I add any more background information to the
commit message?
No, the rest of the commit message is fine. I was only concerned about
the patch title (the first line) since that's what appears frequently
in patch lists (cgit, shortlogs, email/archives), etc.
quoted
How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"?
Will the underlined key word trigger any related software
development concerns?
No, the emphasis was just for the email, I wouldn't put that in the
actual commit log.
Would another look be needed on how the usage of the mentioned data
structure element was reduced over time?
No, it's fine, it's really just about the patch title :-) Thanks,
Vegard
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2016-08-15 13:44:44
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 15 August 2016 at 13:12, SF Markus Elfring
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
From: Markus Elfring <redacted>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 13:03:29 +0200
The field "owner" is set by core. Thus delete an extra initialisation.
Hi,
Just a small nit on the patch title: "delete owner assignment" is
virtually useless as a title because it has no meaning without the
broader context and only describes the literal change. It's like
naming a patch "add a line" or "change the code"; it serves no
purpose.
How about "backlight-tosa: delete _unnecessary_ assignment"? This
immediately communicates the reason for/intent of the patch (there is
unnecessary code, thus we can simplify it).
backlight-tosa: Do not manually assign THIS_MODULE to .owner
This is unnecessary because ...
(Sorry about singling out this patch and the apparent bikeshedding,
this comment obviously applies to a lot of patches by a lot of
authors!)
Thanks,
Vegard
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
From: SF Markus Elfring <hidden> Date: 2016-08-16 15:17:40
From: Markus Elfring <redacted>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:10:12 +0200
The field "owner" is set by the core.
Thus delete an unneeded initialisation.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <redacted>
---
v2: The commit message was adjusted.
drivers/video/backlight/tosa_bl.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
From: Lee Jones <hidden> Date: 2016-08-17 09:48:21
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <redacted>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:10:12 +0200
The field "owner" is set by the core.
Thus delete an unneeded initialisation.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <redacted>
---
v2: The commit message was adjusted.
drivers/video/backlight/tosa_bl.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)