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: <07e8d51d-6e40-44ba-8223-9f2af36a8bb1@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:10:24 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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()

Hi Boris,

On 10/9/2023 12:23 PM, 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.
> 

This is clear. Thank you very much. (I am still working on getting it right
in practice though.)

Reinette