Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        adobriyan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: + fix-mult_frac-multiple-argument-evaluation-bug.patch added to
 mm-nonmm-unstable branch
In-Reply-To: <20230522211514.E0037C4339C@smtp.kernel.org>
References: <20230522211514.E0037C4339C@smtp.kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 01:45:40 +0200
Message-ID: <87ttw4udzv.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 22 2023 at 14:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> Subject: include/linux/math.h: fix mult_frac() multiple argument evaluation bug
> Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 21:25:19 +0300
>
> mult_frac() evaluates _all_ arguments multiple times in the body.

I'm not opposed to the patch, but to the description.

Multiple evaluation is not a bug per se.

Unless there is a reasonable explanation for the alleged bug this is
just a cosmetic exercise.

Changelogs have to be self explanatory and if the shortlog, aka
$subject, claims "bug" then there has to be a reasonable explanation
what the actual bug is.

Seriously.

All this is documented, but obviously documention for changelogs and the
acceptance of patches is just there to be ignored, right?

Thanks,

        tglx