Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:27:10 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     liujing <liujing@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: duplicate code
Message-ID: <YySx7mc3KihEChbI@google.com>
References: <20220916032656.6264-1-liujing@cmss.chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220916032656.6264-1-liujing@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Precedence: bulk

"KVM: x86/mmu:" for the scope.

And explicitly state what the patch does, not what the symptom is, especially since
"duplicate" can be an adjective, noun, or a verb depending on context.  And as an
almost nit, state that it's a comment so that it's obvious from the shortlog that
the patch should have no functional impact.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, liujing wrote:
> in "static int FNAME(walk_addr_generic)" function,
> there is an explanation that uses two to's, which is redundant code

Again, explicitly state what the patch actually does.

All that said, a patch has already been submitted for this[*].  No need to send a
v2, I'll grab the previous patch.

Thanks!

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220831125217.12313-1-yuanjilin@cdjrlc.com