[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9leoRHkbu8Kgoed@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:53:05 +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 09:34:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > That's a stupid rule, I don't know where it came from, and I never
> > enforced it. It's not in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
>
> I believe tglx came up with it - section "Changelog" in
>
> Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
>
> Read the examples there.
Literally the first example there is kinda bogus:
Example 1::
...
When a CPU is dying, we cancel the worker and schedule a new worker
on a different CPU on the same domain.
Improved version::
...
When a CPU is dying, the worker is canceled and a new worker is
scheduled on a different CPU in the same domain.
[ Note that I edited the first example to be a true equivalent
transformation to passive voice. The example in maintainer-tip.rst
makes other edits too which make it hard to compare. ]
How is one more word and saying the same thing in a more circumspect
fashion a liguistic improvement?
And you don't have to believe me - I gave an LLM the following prompt:
Which English sentence is easier to understand:
"When a CPU is dying, the worker is canceled and a new worker is
scheduled on a different CPU in the same domain."
or
"When a CPU is dying, we cancel the worker and schedule a new worker
on a different CPU on the same domain."?
And it answered:
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.
... and although I'd be the first one to distrust an LLM's opinion,
it's correct in this case IMHO.
> And you and I have had this conversation already on IRC. I happen to
> agree with him that "we" is ambiguous - with all those companies
> submitting patches you don't know who's "we" interests are being
> taken care of.
Few people will understand a generic personal pronoun to apply to a
corporate entity magically, unless it's really clear and specific:
"We at Intel believe that this condition cannot occur on Intel
hardware."
in which case it's not a generic personal pronoun anymore.
Or to give another data point: since the v6.13 merge cycle we have
merged over 11,000 commits in the upstream kernel, and over 1,500
contain the word 'we' - over 13% of all commits. This is literally a
pointless battle that creates unnecessary maintenance overhead and
pointless detours for developers.
> And if you formulate your commit message in impersonal tone, it reads a lot
> clearer. It is simply a lot better this way.
Except *not even we* follow it consistently:
starship:~/tip> gl --author=tglx --since=two-years-ago --grep='\<we\>' linus | grep -iw we
by a context from task B and we do the check
So it turns out that we have to do two passes of
"The problem in current microcode loading method is that we load a
microcode way, way too late; ideally we should load it before turning
paging on. This may only be practical on 32 bits since we can't get
to 64-bit mode without paging on, but we should still do it as early
MADT delivers we only trust the hardware anyway.
* booting is too fragile that we want to limit the
Because it's actually a natural and direct linguistic construct.
And have a look at:
$ gl --author=torvalds --since=two-years-ago --grep='\<we\>' linus | grep -iw we
it's 1352 examples of Linus using 'we' as a generic personal pronoun in
the last 2 years alone...
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists