From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Slightly outdated CONFIG_SMP documentation fix Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 15:15:47 -0800 Message-ID: <20140102151547.fde4aa5855cc75e91fea95e5@linux-foundation.org> References: <20131231225921.GA1624@sylph> <23596.1388674589@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20140102150219.3df32a23cf7dbe9618ea118e@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Psychedelic Squid Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , David Howells , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, Russell King , Hirokazu Takata , x86@kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" , Ingo Molnar , Matt Turner , Ivan Kokshaysky , Al Viro , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Richard Henderson , linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, Vineet Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , Paul Mundt , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 23:08:43 +0000 Psychedelic Squid wrote: > On 2 Jan 2014 23:02, "Andrew Morton" wrote: > > > > On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:56:29 +0000 David Howells > wrote: > > > > > Robert Graffham wrote: > > > > > > > + singleprocessor machines. On a singleprocessor machine, the > kernel > > > > > > "singleprocessor" looks wrong without a hyphen. How about > "uniprocessor"? > > > > > > > Yes please. > > > > Also the patch should have a signed-off-by:, as per > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches section 12, please. > > > > The signed-off-by: is already there. ah, it was appended after the patch. Don't do that ;) > I'll get the other changes for the > revised patch ready shortly, thanks. Also, newbie submitter and l couldn't > find this in the documentation at a quick glance: should I submit it as a > new thread, or a continuation of this? Either is OK. I tend to prefer continuation-of-this, mainly because it prevents people from forgetting to cc people who were involved in earlier discussion. (Of course, if the discussion graph was complex, no reply-to-all will capture all participants. Nobody bothers to go through the discussion gathering the names of all participants so I often end up doing this when putting the final patch together)