Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC]: MM documentation

[Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:53:05PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The mm documentation is, well, not entirely up to date. We can opt for
> dropping the outdated parts, which would generate a nice negative
> diffstat, but identifying the outdated documentation requires nearly
> as much effort as updating it, so I think that making and keeping
> the docs up to date would be a better option.
> 
> I'd like to discuss what can be done process-wise to improve the
> situation.
> 
> Some points I had in mind:
> 
> * Pay more attention to docs during review
> * Set an expectation level for docs accompanying a changeset
> * Spend some cycles to review and update the existing docs
> * Spend some more cycles to add new documentation

As a newcomer to the MM area of the kernel I would like to see more of this as
well.

Ira

> 
> I'd appreciate a discussion about how we can get to the second edition
> of "Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager", what are the gaps
> (although they are too many), and what would be the best way to close
> these gaps.
>
> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
> 
>