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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).