Re: [PATCH RESEND linux-next] SUNRPC: Optimize list definition method

["Chuck Lever" <cel@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, at 8:12 PM, Chenguang Zhao wrote:
> Integrate list definition and initialization into LIST_HEAD macro
>
> Signed-off-by: Chenguang Zhao <zhaochenguang@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> index caa94cf57123..949022c5574c 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xprt_setup_backchannel);
>  int xprt_setup_bc(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, unsigned int min_reqs)
>  {
>  	struct rpc_rqst *req;
> -	struct list_head tmp_list;
> +	LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
>  	int i;
> 
>  	dprintk("RPC:       setup backchannel transport\n");
> @@ -147,7 +147,6 @@ int xprt_setup_bc(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, unsigned 
> int min_reqs)
>  	 * lock is held on the rpc_xprt struct.  It also makes cleanup
>  	 * easier in case of memory allocation errors.
>  	 */
> -	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmp_list);
>  	for (i = 0; i < min_reqs; i++) {
>  		/* Pre-allocate one backchannel rpc_rqst */
>  		req = xprt_alloc_bc_req(xprt);
> -- 
> 2.25.1

The commit message:

> SUNRPC: Optimize list definition method
> 
> Integrate list definition and initialization into LIST_HEAD macro

Only describes what the change does, not why it's needed. The body
just restates the diff in English.

A commit message should justify the change. For this patch, there's
no justification. Moreover the word "Optimize" in the subject is
misleading - it implies a benefit that doesn't exist.

If this change were genuinely needed, the commit message should
explain something like:

- "...to match the pattern used elsewhere in this file" (if applicable)
- "...as a prerequisite for X"
- "...to fix Y"

For example, is this patch part of a kernel-wide audit driven by a
code safety concern?


-- 
Chuck Lever