linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] proc.txt: Update kernel filesystem/proc.txt documentation
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:13:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090609141323.aae795a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1244580807.30614.10.camel@wall-e>

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:53:27 +0200
Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:

> Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 12:36 -0700 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> > On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:35:58 +0200
> > Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> 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.

It's more a procedural thing really.  We've learnt that it's best to
avoid mixing more than a single "concept" into a single patch.  For a
whole pile of reasons: reviewability, bisectability, revertability,
testability, etc.

In this case, it's unobvious which parts of the patch were specific to
the stack-information-for-threads changes and which parts were not. 
This makes it hard to review your proposed changes.

> > 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.
> 

It looks OK to me now.  If it passes testing and nobody has fatal
objections then yes, I expect it'll be merged in 2.6.31.

The way to organise these changes is

[patch 1/2] fix proc.txt
[patch 2/2] procfs: provide stack information for threads

The second patch will contain a small update to proc.txt.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-09 22:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-31 14:58 Detailed Stack Information Patch [1/3] Stefani Seibold
2009-04-01 19:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-02 21:26   ` Stefani Seibold
2009-06-03 20:34   ` Detailed Stack Information Patch Next Generation Stefani Seibold
2009-06-03 21:06     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-04 11:23   ` [patch] procfs: provide stack information for threads Stefani Seibold
2009-06-04 11:37     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-04 11:56       ` Stefani Seibold
2009-06-04 17:57         ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-04 20:21   ` Stefani Seibold
2009-06-04 21:23     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-05 19:12       ` Stefani Seibold
2009-06-05 19:19         ` Andrew Morton
2009-10-02 21:17     ` Andreas Schwab
2009-10-02 21:44       ` Andreas Schwab
2009-10-03  6:47         ` Andreas Schwab
2009-10-03  7:40           ` Stefani Seibold
2009-10-03 11:33           ` Stefani Seibold
2009-06-06 10:01   ` [patch] procfs: provide stack information for threads V0.6 Stefani Seibold
2009-06-09 10:35   ` [patch] proc.txt: Update kernel filesystem/proc.txt documentation Stefani Seibold
2009-06-09 19:36     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-09 20:53       ` Stefani Seibold
2009-06-09 21:13         ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-06-10  6:46   ` [patch 1/2] " Stefani Seibold
2009-06-10  6:46   ` [patch 2/2] procfs: provide stack information for threads V0.7 Stefani Seibold
2009-06-10  7:20   ` [patch 2/2] procfs: provide stack information for threads V0.8 Stefani Seibold
2009-06-15 22:01     ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-16  7:14       ` Stefani Seibold

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090609141323.aae795a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=stefani@seibold.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox