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]

Message-ID: <87wo7hdymh.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:36:22 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     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

Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> writes:
> 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.

Yeah, I think the use of 'we' and the imperative mood are separate
things.

ie. this uses 'we' to describe the current behaviour and then the
imperative mood to describe the change that's being made:

  Currently we assume xyzzy always does bar, which is incorrect.

  Change it to do frotz.


cheers