From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759688AbZFIUxw (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:53:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756852AbZFIUxo (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:53:44 -0400 Received: from www84.your-server.de ([213.133.104.84]:59349 "EHLO www84.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755758AbZFIUxn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:53:43 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] proc.txt: Update kernel filesystem/proc.txt documentation From: Stefani Seibold To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: <20090609123641.f4733d8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1238511505.364.61.camel@matrix> <20090401193135.GA12316@elte.hu> <1244543758.13948.5.camel@wall-e> <20090609123641.f4733d8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:53:27 +0200 Message-Id: <1244580807.30614.10.camel@wall-e> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: stefani@seibold.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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.