linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v4 2/3] x86/mce: rename MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN to MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPY

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <90576a70-9ab3-dca7-f5cc-67e430dbe460@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 09:52:36 +0800
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com"
	<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy
 Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Andrew
 Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Naoya Horiguchi
	<naoya.horiguchi@....com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 2/3] x86/mce: rename MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN to
 MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPY_MC



在 2024/2/3 17:43, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 03:56:04PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> The goal of this patch:
>>    When #MC is triggered by copy_mc_user_highpage(), #MC is directly
>> processed in the synchronously triggered do_machine_check() ->
>> kill_me_never() -> memory_failure().
>>
>> And the current handling is to call memory_failure_queue() ->
>> schedule_work_on() in the execution context, I think that's what
>> "scheduling someone else to handle it at some future point is risky."
> 
> Ok, now take everything that was discussed on the thread and use it to
> rewrite all your commit messages to explain *why* you're doing this, not
> *what* you're doing - that is visible from the diff.
> 
> A possible way to structure them is:
> 
> 1. Prepare the context for the explanation briefly.
> 
> 2. Explain the problem at hand.
> 
> 3. "It happens because of <...>"
> 
> 4. "Fix it by doing X"
> 
> 5. "(Potentially do Y)."
> 
> And some of those above are optional depending on the issue being
> explained.
> 
> For more detailed info, see
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
> Section "2) Describe your changes".
> 
> Also, to the tone, from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> 
>   "Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
>    instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
>    to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
>    its behaviour."
> 
> Also, do not talk about what your patch does - that should (hopefully) be
> visible from the diff itself. Rather, talk about *why* you're doing what
> you're doing.

OK, will improved next version.

Thank.
Tong.

> 
> Thx.
>