On 9/24/19 10:42 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:57 AM Dan Williams
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:43 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.kumar(a)linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> We should consider volatile regions synchronous so that we are resilient to
>> OS crashes. This is needed when we have hypervisor like KVM exporting a ramdisk
>> as pmem dimms.
> We have a hard time understanding what agent is being referenced when
> we use "we" in a patch changelog. We would prefer that we consider not
> using "we" in favor of explicitly named agents, or otherwise review
> the changelog to make sure that "we" is clearly discernable. We will
> fix it up this time when applying, but we hope we have made it clear
> how confusing liberal use of "we" can be.
To be clear, I'm not strictly opposed to using "we" when it is
established which we is being referred and stays constant throughout
the description. This instance caught my eye again because the first
couple "we"s seems to be the kernel, and the last we seems to be a
user platform configuration.
Thanks for the feedback. I will take extra care to clearly indicate the
component/agent next time.
Thanks for taking the patch.