All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: remove the irqwork from long duration nmi handler
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:58:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200110195837.GJ19453@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200110173449.rhr5p4lal3aul43g@mail.google.com>

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:34:50PM +0000, Changbin Du wrote:
> Just to move all the check code together and be a standalone function.
> yes, this somewhat does code refining after the irqwork is removed but
> I think it is normal.

But it makes review harder because your patch is removing irq_work,
*nothing* in the commit message is talking about *why* you're doing
that additional change. I'd imagine at the end of the commit message
something like:

"While at it, repurpose the IRQ work callback into a function which
concentrates the NMI duration checking."

This lets a reader know know why that additional change is done instead
of going back'n'forth and having to ask you why you're doing this.

Ok?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-10 19:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-01  7:20 [PATCH] x86/nmi: remove the irqwork from long duration nmi handler Changbin Du
2020-01-07 14:41 ` Changbin Du
2020-01-09 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-01-09 21:02   ` Borislav Petkov
     [not found]     ` <20200110140549.xqjhrdpxllkvqbuk@mail.google.com>
     [not found]       ` <20200110151329.GF19453@zn.tnic>
2020-01-10 17:34         ` Changbin Du
2020-01-10 19:58           ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2020-01-11  0:17             ` Changbin Du

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200110195837.GJ19453@zn.tnic \
    --to=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=changbin.du@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.