linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/cpuid: Use u32 in instead of uint32

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: <Z9m5doW6IBVth-Kz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:20:38 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
	"Ahmed S . Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/cpuid: Use u32 in instead of uint32_t in
 <asm/cpuid/api.h>

* Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:53:05PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > How is one more word and saying the same thing in a more circumspect 
> > fashion a liguistic improvement?
> 
> Because it removes the "we" out of the equation. I don't have to 
> wonder who's the "we" the author is talking about: his employer, his 
> private interests in Linux or "we" is actually "us" - the community 
> as a whole.

In practice this is almost never ambiguous - and when it is, it can be 
fixed up.

> I can't give a more honking example about the ambiguity here.

It's a red herring fallacy really. Let's go over the first example 
given in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst:

    x86/intel_rdt/mbm: Fix MBM overflow handler during hot cpu

    When a CPU is dying, we cancel the worker and schedule a new worker on a
    different CPU on the same domain. But if the timer is already about to
    expire (say 0.99s) then we essentially double the interval.

You'd have to be a bumbling idiot to think that the 'we' means an 
employer or the person themselves ...

Put differently: *the very first example given* uses 'we' functionally 
unambiguously so that everyone who can read kernel changelogs will 
understand what it says. Ie. the whole policy is based on a false 
statement...

Very few of the 'we' general pronouns used in kernel changelogs are 
actually ambiguous. This means that any crusade to eliminate 'we' from 
changelogs is not just pointless, but also a waste of resources - it's 
a net negative. At least IMHO. ;-)

> >   The second sentence, "When a CPU is dying, we cancel the worker 
> >   and schedule a new worker on a different CPU on the same domain," 
> >   is easier to understand. It uses simpler language and a more 
> >   direct structure, making it clearer for the reader.
> 
> I disagree with the LLM - it is yet another proof that AI won't 
> replace humans - if anything it'll make them *think* more. Which is 
> good! :-)

Yeah, and in any case, tastes differ, so no strong feelings from me 
either! :-)

Thanks,

	Ingo