On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 3:32 PM Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 02:26:10PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > > Oh, hypothetical what-if. Yeah, pls drop all that gunk from commit
> > > messages
> > > pls and simply concentrate on why the patch exists.
> > Not sure what you mean.
>
> I mean this: a commit message should simply state why a patch exists. Here's
> what I did with yours:
>
> Convert struct mem_ctl_info to use flex array and use the new flex array
> helpers to enable runtime bounds checking, including annotating the array
> length member with __counted_by() for extra runtime analysis when
> requested.
>
> Move counter assignment immediately after allocation as required by
> __counted_by().
>
> Move memcpy() after the counter assignment so that it is initialized
> before
> the first reference to the flex array, as the new attribute requires.
Looks great.
>
> The idea is that when one reads the commit message months, or even years from
> now - something we all have to do on a daily basis - it should have all the
> necessary information why the change was done.
>
> And nothing else. The emphasis being on the latter part. In this case, what
> this should have been and what some tools can do when lines are magically
> ordered doesn't really matter. The change must be worth to exist for itself.
> In this case, runtime bounds checking, which is something we all want.
>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
