Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] cxl: add type2 device basic support

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:43:57PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > alucerop@ wrote:
> > > From: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@amd.com>
> > > 
> > > Differientiating Type3, aka memory expanders, from Type2, aka device
> > 
> > s/Differientiating/Differentiating/
> > 
> > ...actually to make this imperative tense don't use gerund phrases, so:
> > 
> > s/Differentiating/Differentiate/
> > 
> > This "imperative tense" preference is borrowed from the x86 tip tree
> > patch recommendations [1], which reminds me that CXL should create a
> > document like that to make the grammar expectations known.
> > 
> > [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html
> > 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Imperative tense is the default expectation thoughout the kernel, so
> 'we' in CXL don't need to create any special rules around that.
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#describe-your-changes

Oh, yeah, forgot about that, thanks!

However, the motivation for a CXL maintainer-handbook entry would also
be to convey subsystem-local details like how often to ping on a series,
when the merge window cutoff typically lands, what baseline to use for
new patch submissions, do submissions need to worry about
reverse-xmas-tree variable declartations, etc...

Sidenote on that topic of formatting, I think it would also be useful to
declare "clang-format is good enough", i.e. even if clang-format spits
out something that could be made to look prettier by hand, the
auto-formatted patch is good enough. If someone really cares they can
update the clang-format template.