Don't just make up new prefixes for the subject line. Previous ones look like this: PCI/ACPI: Fix acpi_pci_osc_control_set() kernel-doc comment ACPI: Use acpi_fetch_acpi_dev() instead of acpi_bus_get_device() PCI/ACPI: Check for _OSC support in acpi_pci_osc_control_set() PCI/ACPI: Move _OSC query checks to separate function PCI/ACPI: Move supported and control calculations to separate functions PCI/ACPI: Remove OSC_PCI_SUPPORT_MASKS and OSC_PCI_CONTROL_MASKS ACPI: pci_root: Unify the message printing PCI/ACPI: Clarify message about _OSC failure PCI/ACPI: Remove unnecessary osc_lock PCI/ACPI: Make acpi_pci_osc_control_set() static PCI/ACPI: Replace open coded variant of resource_union() So I think "PCI/ACPI: " would be a good choice. Also capitalize the next word as all the above do. On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:14:34PM -0600, Vishal Verma wrote: > Add full support for negotiating _OSC as defined in the CXL 2.0 spec, as Please include a section reference. > applicable to CXL-enabled platforms. Advertise support for the CXL > features we support - 'CXL 2.0 port/device register access', 'Protocol > Error Reporting', and 'CL Native Hot Plug'. Request control for 'CXL "CL" looks like a typo for "CXL"? > Memory Error Reporting'. The requests are dependent on CONFIG_* based > pre-requisites, and prior PCI enabling, similar to how the standard PCI s/pre-requisites/prerequisites/ > _OSC bits are determined. > > The CXL specification does not define any additional constraints on > the hotplug flow beyond PCIe native hotplug, so a kernel that supports > native PCIe hotplug, supports CXL hotplug. For error handling protocol > and link errors just use PCIe AER. There is nascent support for > amending AER events with CXL specific status [1], but there's > otherwise no additional OS responsibility for CXL errors beyond PCIe > AER. CXL Memory Errors behave the same as typical memory errors so > CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE is sufficient to indicate support to platform > firmware. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/164740402242.3912056.8303625392871313860.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Robert Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> What was reported by the robot? If it just complained about something in v1 or v2, I think there's no point in mentioning this here. It's the same as ordinary review comments (like these I'm composing), and they don't need to be acknowledged. I think "Reported-by" is great when giving credit for bug fixes, but that's not what's happening here. Bjorn
