linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: workqueue: define built-in bh queues

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: <CANiq72ktfkBLyVxx9-4UJZuvk5QdLpR9iP5R7BA6MUtx0KNKUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:53:13 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: Hamza Mahfooz <hamzamahfooz@...ux.microsoft.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, 
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, 
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, 
	Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@...rosoft.com>, 
	Nell Shamrell-Harrington <nells@...ux.microsoft.com>, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...il.com>, 
	Konstantin Andrikopoulos <kernel@...dragore.io>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Roland Xu <mu001999@...look.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: workqueue: define built-in bh queues

On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 5:15 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Using 1st person plural is usually almost a cardinal sin almost and is
> somewhat exhausting to read.

Using "we" is far from a "cardinal sin" -- even key maintainers use it
sometimes.

Yes, commits should be generally written using the imperative,
especially for the sentence about the actual change itself, but it is
more natural in some cases to use "we".

> "These methods" refer to nothing

"These methods" refer to the ones added in the commit -- that seems clear to me.

They are not "methods", though (that is wrong), but apart from that, I
am not sure what the issue is with those two words.

To be clear, this does not mean the commit message is good -- I agree
that it should provide more justification.

Cheers,
Miguel