On 2021/12/23 4:43, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 09:08:04PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> From: Chen Zhou <chenzhou10@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> We want to make function reserve_crashkernel[_low](), which is implemented
> ^^
>
> Please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I", etc,
> and describe your changes in imperative mood.
My bad language habits. I've made this mistake several times.
>
> Also, pls read section "2) Describe your changes" in
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more details.
>
> Bottom line is: personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with
> so many parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them
> please.
OK, I'll check the description of the other patches.
>
>> by X86, available to other architectures. It references macro CRASH_ALIGN
>
> "x86"
OK
>
>> and will be moved to public crash_core.c. But the defined values of
>> CRASH_ALIGN may be different in different architectures. So moving the
>> definition of CRASH_ALIGN to asm/kexec.h is a good choice.
>>
>> The reason for moving CRASH_ADDR_{LOW|HIGH}_MAX is the same as above.
>
> This commit message needs to say something along the lines of:
>
> "Move CRASH_ALIGN and ... to the arch-specific header in preparation
> of making reserve_crashkernel[_low]() generic, used by other
> architectures."
OK, I will use this one, thanks.
By the way, patch 0004-0006 were written based on your suggestion. Can you
take a moment to review it? I think I forgot to add "Suggested-by".
>
> or so.
>
