linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Drop redundant memory-block sizing code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20141106094007.GA4849@pd.tnic>
Date:	Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:40:07 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Drop redundant memory-block sizing code

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:50:14PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Drop the unused code from selecting a fixed memory block size of 2GB
> on large-memory x86-64 systems.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>

This commit message is seriously lacking an explanation why? Why is it
unused, why is it ok on systems with mem < 64g, what is the problem it
solves, ...

Just ask yourself this when you write commit messages: would anyone else
be able to understand what this commit was improving when anyone reads
that commit message months, maybe years from now.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/