On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:04:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> A couple of commit log details:
>
> - If it's for v3.6 then the Cc: stable backport is not
> justified. Either it's for tip:x86/urgent and then we'll
> merge it straight away, or for tip:x86/mce for v3.6 and then
> there's no Cc: stable tag.
This could be part of checkpatch - whenever a stable tag is added to a
patch commit msg, it should at least warn the patch author to check with
<Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt> first.
> - This reference to a commit is a bit unusual:
>
> In commit dad1743e5993f19b3d7e7bd0fb35dc45b5326626
> x86/mce: Only restart instruction after machine check recovery if it is safe
>
> the canonical format is something like:
>
> In commit dad1743e5993f1 ("x86/mce: Only restart instruction
> after machine check recovery if it is safe") ...
Commit referencing in commit messages doesn't come up for the first time
so can we get this as a rule into checkpatch so that we can have unified
commit reference format?
The regex would be probably hairy and generate a couple of false
positives but sure it will help in a lot of other situations.
Also, how many chars of the commit id we keep? The first 12, 14, 15? I'm
thinking of commit id uniqueness sometime far in the future.
> - We tend to use such an ordering of tags:
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.l...@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.pet...@amd.com>
> Cc: sta...@kernel.org # 3.4+
>
> I.e. Tested-by and Reported-by tags first (if any), then
> author SOB, then SOB chain (if any), then Reviewed-by
> and Acked-by, then stable tags, then Cc:s.
patch tags order could be checked for in checkpatch too?
[ … ]
> - Style nit, this:
>
> if (mi->restartable == 0)
>
> is better written as:
>
> if (!mi->restartable)
>
> because mi->restartable's role here is not really an integer
> value, but a boolean in essence.
Yes, we talked about this but having a bool as a u8 there would add
padding to the struct so it's the same thing, space-wise. It could be
converted to a bitfield if more flags are added/needed.
> - The 'doit' flag was significantly misnamed when kill_procs()
> was written and now it spreads further, it's a totally opaque
> name that tells nothing about the role of the flag.
>
> How about 'force'?
Even better, make it even more descriptive: 'force_kill' or 'do_kill' or
'really_kill' - this way one knows exactly what one is looking at.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
