On 3 June 2015 at 03:19, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:
Subject: linux/time64.h:Introduce the 'struct itimerspec64' for 64bit
This subject line is wrong in several aspects:
linux/time64.h is a file name and does not describe the subsystem you are changing. 'time:' is the proper choice here
Missing space between colon and first word of the sentence
What means struct itimerspec64 for 64bit? Is this a 64bit only variant or what?
"Subject: time: Introduce struct itimerspec64"
is the proper subject line as it names the subsystem (time) and tells clearly what the patch does.
This patch introduces the 'struct itimerspec64' for 64bit to replace
itimerspec,
Again: 'for 64bit' is really wrong here.
and also introduces the conversion methods: itimerspec64_to_itimerspec()
and
itimerspec_to_itimerspec64(), that makes itimerspec ready for 2038 year.
You explain in great length WHAT the patch is doing, which is pointless because one can see that from the patch itself. You should explain WHY you are doing this first.
"itimerspec is not year 2038 safe on 32bit systems due to the limitation of the struct timespec members. Introduce itimerspec64 which uses struct timespec64 instead and provide conversion functions"
Hmm?
+struct itimerspec64 {
struct timespec64 it_interval; /* timer period */struct timespec64 it_value; /* timer expiration */I really hate tail comments. If you want to document your structure use proper KernelDoc for it.
Thanks,
tglx
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reviewing in detail, i'll fix these comments in next patch.