Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 21:23:40 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc:     Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>, corbet@lwn.net,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        quic_neeraju@quicinc.com, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, songmuchun@bytedance.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, jpoimboe@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        chang.seok.bae@intel.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com,
        jmattson@google.com, daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com,
        sandipan.das@amd.com, tony.luck@intel.com, james.morse@arm.com,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bagasdotme@gmail.com, eranian@google.com,
        christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, jarkko@kernel.org,
        adrian.hunter@intel.com, quic_jiles@quicinc.com,
        peternewman@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] x86/resctrl: Unwind the errors inside
 rdt_enable_ctx()
Message-ID: <20231009192340.GEZSRTPE9b9hOtu0JJ@fat_crate.local>
References: <20231003235430.1231238-1-babu.moger@amd.com>
 <20231003235430.1231238-6-babu.moger@amd.com>
 <20231009172517.GRZSQ3fT05LGgpcW35@fat_crate.local>
 <51277249-2351-4933-98d5-2cb74a14c7dd@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51277249-2351-4933-98d5-2cb74a14c7dd@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 10:59:27AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Is it the fourth paragraph (mentioning cdp_disable_all()) that is annoying? I
> can see that it is redundant. Would it be more palatable if the fourth paragraph
> is just dropped?

Yes, basically you don't want to explain what a patch does as that
should be obvious from the diff. Rather, it should talk about why
a change is being done. Sure, sometimes, you need to talk about the
change in case you want to highlight certain aspects of why the code is
being changed in the first place but explaining in text what is already
visible in the diff is not very useful.

I always give the example about git archeology here: put enough info in
the commit message so that any future reader of it can understand why
the change was done. The "what" of a patch doesn't belong to that text.

I hope that makes more sense.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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