On 15.04.2021 16:30, Julien Grall wrote: > On 15/04/2021 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.04.2021 16:22, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 15/04/2021 15:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 15.04.2021 13:59, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> On 26/01/2021 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> With xen/common/decompress.h now agreeing in both build modes about >>>>>> what STATIC expands to, there's no need for this abstraction anymore. >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't you also mention "INIT" and "INITDATA" here? >>>> >>>> Two parts: INITDATA was mistakenly mentioned in the title. I've >>>> dropped that. >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>> And what I'm saying about STATIC does not apply to >>>> INIT - for it, we replace the extra level of abstraction by >>>> directly using __init, just like was done in the earlier patches. >>> >>> This should be mention in the commit message. >> >> It already is by what is being said after the comma. May I direct >> you back to the commit messages of earlier patches in this series >> (when talk was of just INIT)? > From the way the commit message is written it sounds like more you are > referring to STATIC only. This is a clearer on the other commit messages > because there is no other way to interpret "this".
If the commit message is taken together with the title, I think all is clear. > So I would suggest to clarify it. And I would like to avoid doing so. As a compromise, I'll change "this abstraction" to "these abstractions". Jan
