Commit messages (was: [PATCH v11] drm/amdgpu: add drm buddy support to amdgpu)

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 15:14, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:04 AM Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> > That's not what anyone's saying here ...
> >
> > No-one's demanding AMD publish RTL, or internal design docs, or
> > hardware specs, or URLs to JIRA tickets no-one can access.
> >
> > This is a large and invasive commit with pretty big ramifications;
> > containing exactly two lines of commit message, one of which just
> > duplicates the subject.
> >
> > It cannot be the case that it's completely impossible to provide any
> > justification, background, or details, about this commit being made.
> > Unless, of course, it's to fix a non-public security issue, that is
> > reasonable justification for eliding some of the details. But then
> > again, 'huge change which is very deliberately opaque' is a really
> > good way to draw a lot of attention to the commit, and it would be
> > better to provide more detail about the change to help it slip under
> > the radar.
> >
> > If dri-devel@ isn't allowed to inquire about patches which are posted,
> > then CCing the list is just a façade; might as well just do it all
> > internally and periodically dump out pull requests.
>
> I think we are in agreement. I think the withheld information
> Christian was referring to was on another thread with Christian and
> Paul discussing a workaround for a hardware bug:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/amd-gfx/msg75908.html

Right, that definitely seems like some crossed wires. I don't see
anything wrong with that commit at all: the commit message and a
comment notes that there is a hardware issue preventing Raven from
being able to do TMZ+GTT, and the code does the very straightforward
and obvious thing to ensure that on VCN 1.0, any TMZ buffer must be
VRAM-placed.

This one, on the other hand, is much less clear ...

Cheers,
Daniel