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;
Date:   Fri, 10 Jan 2020 20:58:37 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/nmi: remove the irqwork from long duration nmi
 handler
Message-ID: <20200110195837.GJ19453@zn.tnic>
References: <20200101072017.82990-1-changbin.du@gmail.com>
 <877e20bb8o.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20200109210225.GK5603@zn.tnic>
 <20200110140549.xqjhrdpxllkvqbuk@mail.google.com>
 <20200110151329.GF19453@zn.tnic>
 <20200110173449.rhr5p4lal3aul43g@mail.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200110173449.rhr5p4lal3aul43g@mail.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:34:50PM +0000, Changbin Du wrote:
> Just to move all the check code together and be a standalone function.
> yes, this somewhat does code refining after the irqwork is removed but
> I think it is normal.

But it makes review harder because your patch is removing irq_work,
*nothing* in the commit message is talking about *why* you're doing
that additional change. I'd imagine at the end of the commit message
something like:

"While at it, repurpose the IRQ work callback into a function which
concentrates the NMI duration checking."

This lets a reader know know why that additional change is done instead
of going back'n'forth and having to ask you why you're doing this.

Ok?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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