Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 2021 22:19:10 +0800 (CST) | From | "Zhaolong Zhang" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Get rid of cpu_missing |
| |
At 2021-11-09 17:15:11, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de> wrote: >On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:35:47PM +0800, Zhaolong Zhang wrote: >> Drop cpu_missing since we have more capable mce_missing_cpus. > >Who is "we"? > >Also, you need to try harder with that commit message - mce_missing_cpus >is a cpumask and I don't see how a cpumask can be "more capable"... > >Some more hints on a possible way to structure a commit message - those >are just hints - not necessarily rules - but it should help you get an >idea: > >Problem is A. > >It happens because of B. > >Fix it by doing C. > >(Potentially do D). > >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 in the diff itself. Rather, talk about *why* you're doing what >you're doing. > >Also, please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I", etc, >and describe your changes in imperative mood. > >Bottom line is: personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with >so many parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them >please.
Hi Boris,
Thank you so much for your kind reply. I really appreciate your detailed guidance. I've sent a v2 patch with new descriptions, trying to be useful and brief. Hope it is qualified...
Regards, Zhaolong
| |