Re: [PATCH 1/1] scheduler: minor improvement to pick_next_highest_task_rt in linux-3.3

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 18:33 +0000, Michael J. Wang wrote:
> > 
> > OK.  Thanks.  I was afraid the details were too verbose when the fix
> > was obvious to the experts.  Anyways, I now know the format you
> > are expecting, so I will do better next time. 
> 
> Since you took the trouble to write it, I thought it worth the trouble
> to include.
> 
> Very often Changelogs are way too spartan (my own included), I can't
> recall the amount of times I've kicked myself for leaving out some - at
> the time - obvious details.
> 
> So I prefer people to go overboard a bit and err on the side 
> of too much information :-)

Yeah. Current trends are: for every 1000 patches sent there's 
maybe one patch that has a tad too much information in its 
changelog - but instead offers good entertainment in the 
changelog so it's still perfectly fine. 990 patches have too 
little information. The remaining 9 are just fine.

Thanks,

	Ingo