From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:35:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations In-Reply-To: References: <20180212165301.17933-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20180212165301.17933-2-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> Message-ID: <20180221153527.12e7d12c@lwn.net> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > >> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc > >> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one > >> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such > >> a small part that it doesn't matter, though? > > > > I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc > > changes to something that would be altered by the following patch, > > because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that > > would have survived. > > > > If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these > > changes in a following patch. Would that be ok? > > Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing > docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion? I would be inclined to agree. Putting docs changes with the associated code changes helps to document the patch itself, among other things. I wouldn't split them up. jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html