linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] x86/resctrl: Unwind the errors inside rdt_enable

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: <20231009192340.GEZSRTPE9b9hOtu0JJ@fat_crate.local>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:23:40 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, corbet@....net,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        quic_neeraju@...cinc.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        chang.seok.bae@...el.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com,
        jmattson@...gle.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
        sandipan.das@....com, tony.luck@...el.com, james.morse@....com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bagasdotme@...il.com, eranian@...gle.com,
        christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, jarkko@...nel.org,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com, quic_jiles@...cinc.com,
        peternewman@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] x86/resctrl: Unwind the errors inside
 rdt_enable_ctx()

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:59:27AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Is it the fourth paragraph (mentioning cdp_disable_all()) that is annoying? I
> can see that it is redundant. Would it be more palatable if the fourth paragraph
> is just dropped?

Yes, basically you don't want to explain what a patch does as that
should be obvious from the diff. Rather, it should talk about why
a change is being done. Sure, sometimes, you need to talk about the
change in case you want to highlight certain aspects of why the code is
being changed in the first place but explaining in text what is already
visible in the diff is not very useful.

I always give the example about git archeology here: put enough info in
the commit message so that any future reader of it can understand why
the change was done. The "what" of a patch doesn't belong to that text.

I hope that makes more sense.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette