[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7829a23-9b4d-0248-415e-85409f17dd77@c-s.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:44:52 +0100
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>, mikey@...ling.org
Cc: apopple@...ux.ibm.com, paulus@...ba.org, npiggin@...il.com,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
mingo@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] powerpc/watchpoint: Prepare handler to handle more
than one watcnhpoint
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.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists