Commit messages in a series of patches

Valdis Kl=?utf-8?Q?=c4=93?=tnieks valdis.kletnieks at
Fri Sep 17 17:58:48 EDT 2021

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:12:45 +0200, FMDF said:

> My question is: why "This patch is preparation for _io_ops [future]
> structure removal." is good while "Eventually this function will be
> deleted but some of the code will be reused later." is not.

The first is specific about what is being changed and why, and tells the
reviewer what to watch for. Also, the reviewer now knows where to look for
justification - there is hopefully a 0/N patch that explains why and how this
structure is being removed.

The second doesn't say which "this function" is being removed, why this is
being done, or whether the changes were internal to the function, or in other
functions.  It also doesn't explain why or how code will be re-used.

The distinction matters, because the biggest point of reviewing is "Does this
commit do what was intended?"  Answering that question is a lot easier when
it's clear what was intended.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 494 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Kernelnewbies mailing list