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: <20250318121557.GCZ9lj_UyOqr9Mkaag@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:15:57 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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>

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.

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

>   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! :-)

> 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.

Except no one says "we at <company>" - they say "we" ambiguously. And I have
had gazillion examples of "we the company want Linux to do this and that
because our use case is bla".

> Or to give another data point: since the v6.13 merge cycle we have 

<snip the stats>

That's why I said

"Is it a hard rule? Ofc not - there are exceptions to that rule depending on
the context."

And we have said "we" for 30+ years so can't change that over night. And not
everyone agrees with that. I understand it all.

I still think that in some cases formulating a commit message in impersonal
style lets you concentrate on the *problem* at hand the commit is trying to
fix - not what we do or want. It removes the person out of the equation
because the person doesn't need to be there.

HOWEVER, it is perfectly fine to say "I did this and that and I've been
wondering for years why the code does what it does." because it adds that
additional coloring about the trials and tribulations of the author.

So no, it is not a hard rule but there is an undeniable merit in writing the
commit messages impersonal.

And that's fine - I fix up things from time to time when they bother me.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette