linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] Documentation/x86: Add documentation for TDX host support

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: <c2145924-2448-4606-3de5-65df8da017ce@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 07:16:04 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
        len.brown@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, isaku.yamahata@...el.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, sagis@...gle.com,
        imammedo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] Documentation/x86: Add documentation for TDX
 host support

On 10/28/22 05:52, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> -architecture doesn't require the BIOS to load the TDX module, but the
> -kernel assumes it is loaded by the BIOS.
> +architecture doesn't require the BIOS to load the TDX module, however the
> +kernel assumes that it is loaded by the BIOS.

Hi Bagas,

I just read the first hunk of your suggestions.  What Kai had was fine.
There's no reason to change "but" to "however".  Both are, to my eye,
perfectly fine.

I appreciate that these suggestions are trying to improve things.  But,
I don't think they're an appreciable improvement.

OK, I lied.  I went and read one more random hunk:

> -Currently the kernel doesn't handle hot-removal of convertible memory but
> -depends on the BIOS to behave correctly.
> +Currently the kernel that hot-removal but assumes that BIOS behaves
> +correctly.

This turns a perfectly good sentence into gibberish.  It makes Kai's
documentation demonstrably worse.  To make matters worse, it's mixed in
with those arbitrary changes like but->however to make it harder to find.

Please stop sending these patches.  They're not helping.  In fact, they
are consuming reviewer and contributor time, so they're actually making
the situation _worse_.