linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Get rid of cpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7fe8edf3.412c.17d051128cd.Coremail.zhangzl2013@126.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 22:19:10 +0800 (CST)
From:   "Zhaolong Zhang" <zhangzl2013@....com>
To:     "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Get rid of cpu_missing

At 2021-11-09 17:15:11, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:35:47PM +0800, Zhaolong Zhang wrote:
>> Drop cpu_missing since we have more capable mce_missing_cpus.
>
>Who is "we"?
>
>Also, you need to try harder with that commit message - mce_missing_cpus
>is a cpumask and I don't see how a cpumask can be "more capable"...
>
>Some more hints on a possible way to structure a commit message - those
>are just hints - not necessarily rules - but it should help you get an
>idea:
>
>Problem is A.
>
>It happens because of B.
>
>Fix it by doing C.
>
>(Potentially do D).
>
>For more detailed info, see
>Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, Section "2) Describe your
>changes".
>
>Also, to the tone, from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
>
> "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."
>
>Also, do not talk about what your patch does - that should hopefully be
>visible in the diff itself. Rather, talk about *why* you're doing what
>you're doing.
>
>Also, please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I", etc,
>and describe your changes in imperative mood.
>
>Bottom line is: personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with
>so many parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them
>please.

Hi Boris,

Thank you so much for your kind reply. I really appreciate your detailed guidance.
I've sent a v2 patch with new descriptions, trying to be useful and brief.
Hope it is qualified...

Regards,
Zhaolong