Impact: (was Re: [PATCH] update rwlock initialization fornat_table)

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:20:19AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >     update rwlock initialization for nat_table
> >     
> >     Impact: clean up
> >     
> >     The commit e099a173573ce1ba171092aee7bb3c72ea686e59
> >     (netfilter: netns nat: per-netns NAT table) renamed the
> >     nat_table from __nat_table to nat_table without updating the
> >     __RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED(__nat_table.lock).
> >     
> >     Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Applied to net-2.6, thanks Steven.
> 
> As Andrew mentioned this is a bug (albeit a "nano-bug" as you
> called it :-) so I removed the Impact line in the commit
> message when applying this.

Speaking of Impact: lines, is this a new fashion or what?

Looking at the ones which are already in official tree, they are either
trivially duplicating Subject: line, or effectively duplicating Subject: line,
or cover up for insufficiently informative (read: badly written) Subject: line,
or simply useless.


	Subject: sched: CPU remove deadlock fix
	Impact: fix possible deadlock in CPU hot-remove path

What prevented to write "Subject: sched: fix possible deadlock in CPU hot-remove path"?


	AMD IOMMU: __unmap_single: check for bad_dma_address instead of 0
	Impact: minor fix

Well...

I have an idea on how to make them remotely useful, but can we agree that there is
a problem arising here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/