On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:02 PM Markus Elfring <markus.elfr...@web.de> wrote: > > >>>> Here needs a NULL check. > >> quite obvious? > > I suggest to consider another fine-tuning for the wording also around > such “obvious” programming items. > > > >>> I find this change description questionable > >>> (despite of a reasonable patch subject). > > I got further development concerns. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=a10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb837467893b4bef01#n129 > > * Were changes mixed for different issues according to the diff code? > > * I find it safer here to split specific changes into separate update steps > for a small patch series. > > * Will the addition of the desired null pointer check qualify for > the specification of the tag “Fixes”? > > > >>> Will a patch change log be helpful here? > >> I realized I should write some change log, and the change log was > >> meaningless. > > Will any more adjustments happen for the discussed update suggestion > after the third patch version? > > > > The changelog is fine IMO. The point of a changelog is to tell a > > reader doing git archeology why a change happened and this is > > sufficent for that. > > We might stumble on a different understanding for the affected “change logs”. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=a10c9c710f9ecea87b9f4bbb837467893b4bef01#n751 > > Would you like to follow the patch evolution a bit easier? > > Regards, > Markus
Thanks for the reply. I should study the documentation first. BTW, happy new week