Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180620121450.31724b69@gandalf.local.home>
References: <1529484440-20634-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20180620145058.GP3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180620114335.7a314642@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180620155658.GU3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CANrsvRMW_LF1W3-OerHbXm1nqPBLGhQYP6ZsTMapGnfiT7-W3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180620121450.31724b69@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:37:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CANrsvRNJdP4z-5HD5sSC3xb972SHzFKViGdBaC0NGD2nxXrVXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] rcu: Do prepare and cleanup idle depending on in_nmi()
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 01:11:36 +0900
> Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Byungchul, is there any reason to make this change other than preparation
>> > for your second patch?
>>
>> Sorry again I didn't explain it fully in advance. The only reason is to
>> prepare for the 2nd. It was harder to read the patch when I made them
>> into one. But I can make them into one if you don't think so.
>
> Please keep them as separate patches. It's fine to say in one patch
> that it is needed for a following patch. Not exactly in those words
> though.
>
> Each patch should be a stand alone patch, such that a git blame comes
> to it, we don't need to go searching further to see why a change was
> made.
>
> What a change log should say is something like.
>
> "In order to do X, we need to do Y, because of Z" Where X is a
> description of what is to come, Y is a description of what the current
> commit is doing, and Z is the rational for that change.

Very good comment and tip. You're helping me remind a good way
to describe a change log.

From now on, I wanna try my best to write change logs in the form:

   "In order to do X, we need to do Y, because of Z"

I will. Thanks a lot, Steve.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve

-- 
Thanks,
Byungchul