Re: [PATCH] cxl/events: Fix event type check for CME counter expiration

[Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>]

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.

-- Alison