Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Get rid of cpu_missing

["Zhaolong Zhang" <zhangzl2013@126.com>]

At 2021-11-09 17:15:11, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:35:47PM +0800, Zhaolong Zhang wrote:
>> Drop cpu_missing since we have more capable mce_missing_cpus.
>
>Who is "we"?
>
>Also, you need to try harder with that commit message - mce_missing_cpus
>is a cpumask and I don't see how a cpumask can be "more capable"...
>
>Some more hints on a possible way to structure a commit message - those
>are just hints - not necessarily rules - but it should help you get an
>idea:
>
>Problem is A.
>
>It happens because of B.
>
>Fix it by doing C.
>
>(Potentially do D).
>
>For more detailed info, see
>Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, Section "2) Describe your
>changes".
>
>Also, to the tone, from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
>
> "Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
>  instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
>  to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
>  its behaviour."
>
>Also, do not talk about what your patch does - that should hopefully be
>visible in the diff itself. Rather, talk about *why* you're doing what
>you're doing.
>
>Also, please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I", etc,
>and describe your changes in imperative mood.
>
>Bottom line is: personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with
>so many parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them
>please.

Hi Boris,

Thank you so much for your kind reply. I really appreciate your detailed guidance.
I've sent a v2 patch with new descriptions, trying to be useful and brief.
Hope it is qualified...

Regards,
Zhaolong