From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755569AbZCLLfx (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:35:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753196AbZCLLfn (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:35:43 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57898 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752114AbZCLLfm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:35:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:35:20 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix HYPERVISOR_update_descriptor() Message-ID: <20090312113520.GA8353@elte.hu> References: <49B8F3D4.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20090312105426.GC30204@elte.hu> <49B8FF3E.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49B8FF3E.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Ingo Molnar 12.03.09 11:54 >>> > >* Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > >> Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge > >> > >> --- > >> arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > >> --- linux-2.6.29-rc7/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h 2009-03-11 17:52:10.000000000 +0100 > >> +++ 2.6.29-rc7-x86_64-xen-update-descr/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h 2009-02-13 11:41:39.000000000 +0100 > >> @@ -296,6 +296,8 @@ HYPERVISOR_get_debugreg(int reg) > >> static inline int > >> HYPERVISOR_update_descriptor(u64 ma, u64 desc) > >> { > >> + if (sizeof(u64) == sizeof(long)) > >> + return _hypercall2(int, update_descriptor, ma, desc); > >> return _hypercall4(int, update_descriptor, ma, ma>>32, desc, desc>>32); > > > >missing changelog and Impact line. > > I'm confused: What point is there to add a textual description > that matches the subject? [...] For example, under what circumstances did you trigger the bug, how widely does it affect people, how did you test it. You are sending patches very close to the 2.6.29 release, and your commit log is non-existent. Yes, i can figure out what the patch does, but that is not the point. The point is for you to be forthcoming with such information and trying to be helpful to the maintenance process, by properly describing changes, by describing how you found the bug, how you tested the fix, how significant you find the fix, etc. I.e. try to emit the information you have about this _already_, and generously so, instead of hiding it and forcing others to recover it. It might be a small work for me to recover it and put it into the changelog, but many of your past patches showed such a pattern and such overhead mounts up quickly. > [...] And where is the need for an impact line documented > (clearly neither SubmitChecklist no SubmittingPatches have any > occurrence of the word impact), i.e. what are the valid values > to chose from? See: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/28/67 Ingo