On 4 May 2018 at 16:12, Mateusz Guzik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Steven Hartland < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Can we get the why in commit messages please? >> >> This sort of message doesnt provide anything more that can be obtained >> from reading the diff, which just leaves us wondering why? >> >> I’m sure there is a good reason, but without confirmation we’re just left >> guessing. The knock on to this is if some assumption that caused the why >> changes, anyone looking at this will not be able to make an informed >> descision that that was the case. >> >> > bcopy is an equivalent of memmove, i.e. it accepts overlapping buffers. > But if we know for a fact they don't overlap (like here), doing this over > memcpy (which does not accept such buffers) only puts avoidable > constraints on the optimizer. > > This is a rather pedestrian change which can be made in many places, > I don't see the point of repeating the explanation in each one. Although > I guess it would make sense to point at a specific commit which explains > things. >
I feel like the second paragraph in particular suggests a methodical project (maybe in a branch?) to convert or mark all instances as not-to-be-converted based on their context and practical concerns (like performance) might be better than doing a bunch of one-off commits, with batched commits to -CURRENT from time-to-time. Then it's easy to say "Phase IV of bcopy analysis in kernel: convert to memcpy for all non-overlapping small copies" with a whole bunch of changes lumped together. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
