Re: [RFC 0/4] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update

[Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>]

Hi Peter,

On 04/08/2015 04:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:59:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is the promised update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
>> I send it as an RFC because of the following doubts:
>> 1) I split the patches trying to isolate related changes. So,
>>     - the first patch fixes 2 typos that I noticed when updating the
>>       documentation
>>     - the second patch is based on Zhiqiang Zhang's patch and fixes some
>>       inconsistencies in the symbols used for period and execution times
>>     - the third patch adds a small discussion about admission tests for EDF on
>>       single processor systems
>>     - the fourth patch discusses the multi-processor case, adding some missing
>>       references
>>     I am not sure if this split is ok, or if I should do something different
>>     (should I put all of the changes in a single patch?)
>
> This is indeed the preferred way.
>
>> 2) The second patch is partly by me and partly by Zhiqiang Zhang. I do not
>>     know how to preserve Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship, so I added "Based on a
>>     patch by Zhiqiang Zhang" in the changelog. But I am not sure if this is
>>     the correct thing to do (maybe I should split this in 2 different patches?)
>
> This is not uncommon practise and works for me.
>
>> 3) I re-read the added text multiple times, and it looks ok to me... But I am
>>     not a native speaker, so it might contain English errors or sentences that
>>     are not clear enough
>
> I send the one comment I had in reply to the relevant email.
>
> Other than that it looked good to me so I've queued these patches.
Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you, Juri
and Henrik) by sending incremental patches based on these ones (since I see you queued
these patches), or should I resend everything after addressing the various comments?


			Thanks,
				Luca