linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

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: <20170411083521.rlnkfz326rwpzs3k@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:35:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/11/2017 3:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > This is still a completely inadequate changelog. I really will not
> > accept patches like this.
> > 
> Hi,
> 
> The changelog is added in the cover-letter ("[PATCH v3 0/5] perf report: Show branch type").
> 
> Does the changelog need to be added in each patch's description?
> 
> That's fine, I can add and resend this patch.

The cover letter is not retained; it is throw away information.

Each patch should have a coherent changelog that explain why the patch
was done and explain non trivial things in the implementation.

Simply copy/pasting the same story in multiple patches is not right
either, for the simple fact that the patches were not the same. You did
a different thing, so you need a different story.