[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] v2: more sampling fun 2

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:35:08AM -0800, speck for mark gross wrote:
> > This "We" sounds like you mean Intel...?
> yes, this instance of "we" is an intel statement from that white paper I'm
> waiting on for the documentation patch.

See how "we" means different things and how you should avoid it in
commit messages?

IOW, pls use passive voice.

> I wrote it this way initially because at the time I expected there to be more
> dynamic support for managing this mitigation WRT post boot changes to TSX
> availability.  The expectation I was later given was to make it a boot
> commandline control only.  I kept it this way mostly out of laziness and
> simplification of the number of mitigation states to track.

Drop it then.

> srb_sampling is no more readable to me and doesn't convay what the
> command line is for. But, more readable is always better.

Ok, let's see what better suggestions/preferences the others might have.

> Perhaps changing into a single value, with any '=' like:
> disable_srbs_mitigation or srbds_mitigation_off would be better?

You don't need to have "disable" or "off" in the actual command line
switch's name if you give it the on/off after the "=".

And as I said already, you don't need to have a tautology by putting
"mitigation" in the mitigation option - it is a mitigation.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
--