From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756439AbZJVRPr (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:15:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755382AbZJVRPr (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:15:47 -0400 Received: from g4t0014.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.17]:31832 "EHLO g4t0014.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754258AbZJVRPq (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:15:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:15:50 -0600 From: Alex Chiang To: David Rientjes Cc: Randy Dunlap , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Documentation: document /sys/devices/system/cpu/ Message-ID: <20091022171550.GC21728@ldl.fc.hp.com> References: <20091022033506.13399.90799.stgit@bob.kio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Rientjes : > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Alex Chiang wrote: > > > Hi Greg, Randy, > > > > Not sure who actually maintains Documentation/ABI/; if it's not either of > > y'all then please point me at the correct maintainer. > > > > Anyhow, I was proposing some patches to enhance the NUMA sysfs interface: > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/40084/ > > > > I documented my changes, but David Rientjes suggested that I take this > > as an opportunity to do a more thorough job, so here is an attempt at > > doing so by documenting at least the files that I saw on my system. Maybe > > there are more that I didn't configure in, but I think this series covers > > a good amount. > > > > Fantastic, thanks Alex! > > One thing I noticed in patches 3-6 of this series is you've attached > multiple files to a single "What:" line. That hasn't been done before > (ignore the style violations of sysfs-firmware-*) and I think it would be > better to seperate each file out into its own section. Ok, I can do that. I was originally going for compactness, but I understand the point you make below. > I know it's long, but I think some automated scripts are eventually going > to use this documentation and it's best to follow the guidelines in > Documentation/ABI/README. What do you think about keeping all the descriptions in the same file, sysfs-devices-system-cpu vs. splitting them out into separate files, sysfs-devices-system-cpu-topology, e.g.? Will your tools be able to handle that? Thanks. /ac