linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/15] powerpc/watchpoint: Prepare handler to handle more than one watcnhpoint

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:27:26 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>, mikey@...ling.org,
        apopple@...ux.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, npiggin@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        paulus@...ba.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] powerpc/watchpoint: Prepare handler to handle more than one watcnhpoint

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:44:52PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 18/03/2020 à 12:35, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> >Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
> >>Le 09/03/2020 à 09:58, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
> >>>Currently we assume that we have only one watchpoint supported by hw.
> >>>Get rid of that assumption and use dynamic loop instead. This should
> >>>make supporting more watchpoints very easy.
> >>
> >>I think using 'we' is to be avoided in commit message.
> >
> >Hmm, is it?
> >
> >I use 'we' all the time. Which doesn't mean it's correct, but I think it
> >reads OK.
> >
> >cheers
> 
> From 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html :
> 
> Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. “make xyzzy do frotz” 
> instead of “[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz” or “[I] changed xyzzy 
> to do frotz”, as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change its 
> behaviour.

That is what is there already?  "Get rid of ...".

You cannot describe the current situation with an imperative.


Segher