On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:13:06AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 1:20 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:27:14PM +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:

quoted

Substitute calls to action insert function with calls to action insert
unique function that warns if insertion overwrites index in idr.

I know this patch may be gone on V2, but a general comment, please use
the function names themselves instead of a textualized version. I.e.,
s/action insert unique/tcf_idr_insert_unique/

disagree. While doing reviews I found out that if I ask the developer
to use higher
level / descriptive language and specifically to avoid putting
variable / function names in
patch titles and change logs, the quality gets ++ big time, vs if the
developer is allowed to say

net/mlx5: Changed add_vovo_bobo()

Added variable do_it_right to add_vovo_bobo(), now we are terribly good.

In your example I agree that it is not helping and it is even allowing
such empty changelog, just as in the section I highlighted, the
descriptive language is also not helping IMHO.

I had to read it 3 times to make sure I wasn't missing a modifier word
when comparing the two functions and well, it's just saying
"Substitute calls to foo function to bar function". I don't see how
the textualized version helps in this case while, at least in this
one, I would have visually recognized the function names way faster.

Sounds like 2 bad examples for either approach.