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:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: + fix-mult_frac-multiple-argument-evaluation-bug.patch added to
 mm-nonmm-unstable branch
In-Reply-To: <6e6b2dc1-1fab-4506-bbad-41edaafd7231@p183>
References: <20230522211514.E0037C4339C@smtp.kernel.org>
 <87ttw4udzv.ffs@tglx> <6e6b2dc1-1fab-4506-bbad-41edaafd7231@p183>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 12:41:20 +0200
Message-ID: <87o7mbuy7j.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 23 2023 at 11:48, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I don't want to return to kindergarten and document problem which every
> C programmer learns exploring MIN(a, b).

A quick summary what the bug is, is _not_ kindergarten level.

Why does a reviewer have to do his own analysis at the patch level to
figure out what this solves and fixes?

It's 20 seconds of courtesy on the submitter side which saves a lot of
time on the reviewer and maintainer side.

Thanks,

        tglx