From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/mtrr: Check if fixed MTRRs exist before saving them
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 21:55:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cyms2f20.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240607194437.52939-1-ak@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Jun 07 2024 at 12:44, Andi Kleen wrote:
> MTRRs have a obsolete fixed variant for fine grained
> caching control of the 640K-1MB region. This fixed variant has a
> separate capability bit in the MTRR capability MSR. Most of the MTRR code
> checks this capability bit before trying to access the fixed MTRR MSRs,
> except in one place. This patch fixes this place to also
> check the capability.
I don't know how many times I have told you that "This patch ..." has no
place in change logs. Just in case you can't find the reference:
git grep 'This patch' Documentation/process/
While at it you might also hit the format shortcut in your favourite
editor to actually make the above paragraph properly justified.
Also the content of this "changelog" is close to word salad. It's not
that hard to follow the documented expectations of change logs:
"It’s also useful to structure the changelog into several paragraphs
and not lump everything together into a single one. A good structure
is to explain the context, the problem and the solution in separate
paragraphs and this order."
It's irrelevant whether most code checks the bit, what's relevant is
that a particular piece of code does NOT check it. It's also interesting
what the resulting problem is, i.e. reading gunk, #GP or whatever and
why this suddenly matters and did not explode in decades, but that's
nowhere explained. So why does this patch matter?
It's really not rocket science to write a coherent changelog.
Thanks,
tglx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-01 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-07 19:44 [PATCH v4] x86/mtrr: Check if fixed MTRRs exist before saving them Andi Kleen
2024-08-01 19:55 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87cyms2f20.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox