From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-97.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-97.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 357EF41B8E0 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 08:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.97 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790065504; cv=none; b=gvEglo5xr3yedJ7vNrYTk7ONeOzvCjt5XoUnmd8K6NNYYAL3FUGPowK8ezv2UklJcz8vkQnL9EtYfjcywSVJakNjsY8iqu9TJK/vSa/iFB3iB3iMezHMbvuJtVM4l2wWM7mCOrfJhHMnBJZBK7eCSqtkDUgyTCeTgD/xdN3QWeA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790065504; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jcCY0fCSpx3QirVvRU/RoqQbTsFduVL9H17E2G53sIA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=fRh38lOmUwnAW2soW0CW2QIbEf5M18j8CjxMon5CdcUrxx7WBOpQuLepwgajOmKztLOZtDTt/GqcjpmNZaPBdU6zsQgCqqknWyngUuvq+uUGWaSlUgPp02xTGQ19LFjOMOrO/GHOijSdXVzExmO7G5nK+4BFQPuWzTCP/QvaHYs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=asEbdaIw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.97 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="asEbdaIw" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1790065498; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=jcCY0fCSpx3QirVvRU/RoqQbTsFduVL9H17E2G53sIA=; b=asEbdaIweAk8XHfDsXx+WpjfLv88R+pFjTCAYTP5WEPW5SLwzgVCeHeQBEfY6DyB5Kh7EptVT59AaXjBG/F9k2PAR4FxomVUl1rHHZGAlsVzgjo5G6X0gVP9WBQgXHNC/fQTBEkuOtL27na29y2lWrrg3b4xKFdZe61GyLrni2w= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R121e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033032089153;MF=kanie@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=9;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0XBT75sK_1790065496; Received: from 30.178.81.152(mailfrom:kanie@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0XBT75sK_1790065496 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:24:57 +0800 Message-ID: <04792a46-9a85-4f2d-a1ec-4cf27a771e6b@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:24:56 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl/events: Fix event type check for CME counter expiration To: Alison Schofield Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Jonathan Cameron , Dave Jiang , Vishal Verma , Dan Williams , Ira Weiny , Li Ming , linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org References: <20260921120932.1769566-1-kanie@linux.alibaba.com> From: Guixin Liu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 在 2026/9/22 01:28, Alison Schofield 写道: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 08:09:32PM +0800, Guixin Liu wrote: > > > Hi Guixin, > > Agree w DaveJ's commit log suggestion. > > Also, the Subject can be specific, like: > cxl/events: Test CME counter expiry with equality, not bitwise AND > > You may want to add something like I've appended below to your agent instructions. > It is intended to better calibrate your agent. Also try giving your agent this > patch (v1 and v2) as a concrete example in the skill. It's a good one because the > original one isn't bad, it is actually thorough and technically valid, but it is > trying to make the commit log serve as the entire bug report, reproduction recipe > and test report. That's exactly the tendency you want this agent to stop doing. > > Teach your agent (w example): > > For Linux kernel commit messages, be concise and focus on why the change is > needed, not a detailed narration of the investigation. > > Structure the commit message as: > > 1. Background only when needed to understand the problem. > 2. Problem: what the current code gets wrong. > 3. Impact: the meaningful consequence, especially user-visible impact. > 4. Resolution: what the patch changes and why that addresses the problem. > 5. Brief "Found by" / "Tested by" information when useful. > > Do not include every example, reproduction step, intermediate observation, or > possible consequence just because that information is available. Keep only > details needed to establish the problem and impact. > > For small, obvious fixes, aim for roughly 1-3 short paragraphs plus concise > testing information. Explain the semantic error. Do not narrate the code diff. > > Subjects should describe the change specifically. Avoid generic "Fix ..." > subjects when a more descriptive imperative subject is available. Thank you for your patient explanation, I summarized these to a skill, thanks. Best Regards, Guixin Liu > -- Alison