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: <3369d0f6-8da2-42f6-a579-c8219d13b0fc@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 14:58:57 -0500
From:   "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     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 10/9/23 14:23, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
> 

Sure. Will drop the last paragraph in next revision.
-- 
Thanks
Babu Moger