On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwir...@gmail.com: >> From: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> >> >> Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or >> 'int'. Adjust asserts. >> >> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> > > I haven't followed the original discussion and therefore don't know what > the controversy is about (nor do I feel like reading it up), but if > there is no consensus, I would expect even more than already for normal > patches that the commit message doesn't only state the obvious change, > but also the reasons for the change. > > This message isn't much different from the famous "i++; /* increase i by > one */" code comment.
The message could be improved by vast amounts, but in my view it is sufficient for such a simple change. > > Kevin
