On Wed 2022-05-11 17:03:51, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: > On 10/05/2022 14:40, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:49:17 -0300 > > "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Currently we don't have a way to check if there are dumpers set, > >> except counting the list members maybe. This patch introduces a very > >> simple helper to provide this information, by just keeping track of > >> registered/unregistered kmsg dumpers. It's going to be used on the > >> panic path in the subsequent patch. > > > > FYI, it is considered "bad form" to reference in the change log "this > > patch". We know this is a patch. The change log should just talk about what > > is being done. So can you reword your change logs (you do this is almost > > every patch). Here's what I would reword the above to be: > > > > Currently we don't have a way to check if there are dumpers set, except > > perhaps by counting the list members. Introduce a very simple helper to > > provide this information, by just keeping track of registered/unregistered > > kmsg dumpers. This will simplify the refactoring of the panic path. > > Thanks for the hint, you're right - it's almost in all of my patches. > I'll reword all of them (except the ones already merged) to remove this > "bad form". Shame on me that I do not care that much about the style of the commit message :-) Anyway, the code looks good to me. With the better commit message: Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> Best Regards, Petr