Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update

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

Hi,

On 04/12/2015 11:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
>> Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I:
>> 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's
>>     authorship is preserved)
>> 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC
>> 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections.
>>     I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch,
>>     so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it.
>>
>> I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between
>> tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only
>> part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to
>> isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway.
>
> Note that your Signed-off-by lines are missing.
Ops... I knew I was doing something wrong...


> I also noticed the following inconsistency: 'utilization' (and
> variants) is spelled in two variants in the text: 'utilization' and
> 'utilisation'.
>
> I'd strongly suggest using 'utilization' et al (american spelling),
> because that's how it's spelled in most of the kernel source.
Sorry about that... I have ispell configured to use the british dictionary
as a default.
I think this inconsistency already existed before my patches... So, what should
I do? Should I resend the patchset, adding a patch to convert from british to
american spelling before my new changes? Or can the patches be committed as they
are now, and then I send a follow-up patch to convert the spelling?

In any case, I'll send the new version of the patchset or the follow-up patch
(depending on what is the preferred thing) later this week, on Thursday or on
Friday (right now I am overloaded with work-related stuff).


			Thanks,
				Luca