From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933568AbbCDLf0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:35:26 -0500 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:53974 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759214AbbCDLfX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:35:23 -0500 Message-ID: <54F6EDFE.2040305@arm.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:35:26 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: Sudeep Holla , Tejun Heo , Andre Przywara , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v2] x86: move cacheinfo sysfs to generic cacheinfo infrastructure References: <20150224175749.GC3575@pd.tnic> <1425249564-28347-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20150303184527.GE3648@pd.tnic> <20150303185302.GA14909@htj.duckdns.org> <20150303185712.GF3648@pd.tnic> <54F6E965.4030301@arm.com> <20150304112740.GB3663@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20150304112740.GB3663@pd.tnic> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2015 11:35:20.0397 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BA15FD0:01D0566F] X-MC-Unique: 115030411352101301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/03/15 11:27, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:15:49AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> I can do that, but wouldn't that add confusion as this commit is not >> changing that behaviour. It's already changed in v4.0-rc1 > > Nah, this would add a reference to the fact that the cpumask format is > not really a stable thing and thus cannot be considered a userpsace > regression. And having this info is important IMO in case someone is > wondering in the future. > Thanks for clarifying, will add that info. Now I think it completely makes sense especially since this commit will be the first target when user-space first notice this cpumask format change. > In general, having more and even redundant info in the commit messages > is much better than having less info. I can't count the times I've been > staring at a one-liner commit message and trying to rhyme up what was > the purpose of doing it this way. > > So more is more, in this case. :-) > Agreed :) -- Regards, Sudeep