linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] rcu: Do prepare and cleanup idle depending on in

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: <CANrsvRNJdP4z-5HD5sSC3xb972SHzFKViGdBaC0NGD2nxXrVXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:37:24 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] rcu: Do prepare and cleanup idle depending on in_nmi()

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:11:36 +0900
> Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> > Byungchul, is there any reason to make this change other than preparation
>> > for your second patch?
>>
>> Sorry again I didn't explain it fully in advance. The only reason is to
>> prepare for the 2nd. It was harder to read the patch when I made them
>> into one. But I can make them into one if you don't think so.
>
> Please keep them as separate patches. It's fine to say in one patch
> that it is needed for a following patch. Not exactly in those words
> though.
>
> Each patch should be a stand alone patch, such that a git blame comes
> to it, we don't need to go searching further to see why a change was
> made.
>
> What a change log should say is something like.
>
> "In order to do X, we need to do Y, because of Z" Where X is a
> description of what is to come, Y is a description of what the current
> commit is doing, and Z is the rational for that change.

Very good comment and tip. You're helping me remind a good way
to describe a change log.

>From now on, I wanna try my best to write change logs in the form:

   "In order to do X, we need to do Y, because of Z"

I will. Thanks a lot, Steve.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve

-- 
Thanks,
Byungchul