[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d40b95e-2ed7-4f32-895e-a2174236ee65@web.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:50:23 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Boris Ostrovsky
<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jürgen Groß
<jgross@...e.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [v3] x86/xen: Add some null pointer checking to smp.c
>> How do you think about to refer to the function name
>> instead of the file name in the patch subject?
>>
> The main goal is to assign a errno to rc. So use 'fail_mem is good to understand.
You responded with information which can fit to the patch body.
How do you think about consequences for a subject variant like the following?
x86/xen: Add some null pointer checks in xen_smp_intr_init()
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists