[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200111001723.4ygbhfcza2ifrpzn@mail.google.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 00:17:23 +0000
From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: remove the irqwork from long duration nmi
handler
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 08:58:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:34:50PM +0000, Changbin Du wrote:
> > Just to move all the check code together and be a standalone function.
> > yes, this somewhat does code refining after the irqwork is removed but
> > I think it is normal.
>
> But it makes review harder because your patch is removing irq_work,
> *nothing* in the commit message is talking about *why* you're doing
> that additional change. I'd imagine at the end of the commit message
> something like:
>
> "While at it, repurpose the IRQ work callback into a function which
> concentrates the NMI duration checking."
>
> This lets a reader know know why that additional change is done instead
> of going back'n'forth and having to ask you why you're doing this.
>
> Ok?
>
sure, and thanks for your suggestion. I will send v2 later.
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
--
Cheers,
Changbin Du
Powered by blists - more mailing lists