| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:13:54 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> To: Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nathan Scott <nathans@...hat.com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: proc: fix kernel version On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:48:23 -0400 Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com> wrote: Thank you for working to update the documentation! That said, though, I have a question and a request with regard to this particular change. > -Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 3.20.0) > +Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.1) That file is full of weird version numbers; is there a reason why you want to change that one in particular? The 2.6.8-rc3 reference immediately afterward doesn't seem more worthy of protection. This file is dramatically out of date in general. Rather than change the version number at the head of the list of status files, why not update the list to match current reality? There are a lot of things missing. Failing that, I would entertain a patch that simply removes most of the version numbers from this file; I don't think they provide any useful information, and I certainly don't see the value of occasionally tweaking them forward. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists