On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 04:25:26PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> 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.
Applied, thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
