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

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

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.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette