From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832756B004F for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:13:23 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] proc.txt: Update kernel filesystem/proc.txt documentation Message-Id: <20090609141323.aae795a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1244580807.30614.10.camel@wall-e> References: <1238511505.364.61.camel@matrix> <20090401193135.GA12316@elte.hu> <1244543758.13948.5.camel@wall-e> <20090609123641.f4733d8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1244580807.30614.10.camel@wall-e> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Stefani Seibold Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:53:27 +0200 Stefani Seibold wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 12:36 -0700 schrieb Andrew Morton: > > On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:35:58 +0200 > > Stefani Seibold wrote: > > > > > This is a patch against the file Documentation/filesystem/proc.txt. > > > > > > It is an update for the "Process-Specific Subdirectories" to reflect > > > the changes till kernel 2.6.30. It also introduce the my > > > "provide stack information for threads". > > > > Sorry, but it would be much preferable to do this as two patches. The > > first fixes up proc.txt and the second adds the > > stack-information-for-threads material. > > > > That is really frustrating. I did everything that you and ingo molnar > had complained. > > What is wrong with the "provide stack information for threads"? It is a > very tiny patch which did not harm. > > The only reason to fix and update the proc.txt was that you told me that > this is the last thing that you miss. It's more a procedural thing really. We've learnt that it's best to avoid mixing more than a single "concept" into a single patch. For a whole pile of reasons: reviewability, bisectability, revertability, testability, etc. In this case, it's unobvious which parts of the patch were specific to the stack-information-for-threads changes and which parts were not. This makes it hard to review your proposed changes. > > This is because the two changes are quite conceptually distinct, and we > > might end up wanting to merge one chage and not the other. > > > > Okay, if the other patch will not included than it makes no sense for me > to get in the other. > > Simple question: will you accept the thread stack info patch or not? If > yes, i will spent the time to split proc.txt patch. > It looks OK to me now. If it passes testing and nobody has fatal objections then yes, I expect it'll be merged in 2.6.31. The way to organise these changes is [patch 1/2] fix proc.txt [patch 2/2] procfs: provide stack information for threads The second patch will contain a small update to proc.txt. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org