linux-kernel - Re: [Pull] Some documentation patches

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47ED4B4D.8030200@oracle.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:47:25 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Pull] Some documentation patches

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I've noticed that getting documentation patches merged seems to be a
> slower and more uncertain process than it was a while back.  So I
> figured I'd try to be one of the cool folks with their own git tree and
> see if that works better.  Linus, if you agree, could you please pull:

A lot of the time it's just a matter of the "merge window" for
non-critical patches.  OTOH, doc patches could be merged at just about
any time IMO.

>   git://git.lwn.net/linux-2.6.git docs
> 
> To get the following:
> 
> Jonathan Corbet (3):
>       Add the seq_file documentation
>       Fill out information on patch tags in SubmittingPatches
>       Add a comment discouraging use of in_atomic()
> 
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches        |   54 ++++++-
>  Documentation/filesystems/00-INDEX     |    2 +
>  Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt |  283 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/hardirq.h                |    8 +
>  4 files changed, 344 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt
> 
> These changes are (1) an updated version of the seq_file document first
> posted in 2003, (2) the much-reviewed patch tags documentation, and
> (3) a comment warning developers that in_atomic() doesn't mean what they
> think it means.  No code changes.
> 
> If this works out, and nobody objects, I'll try to run this tree into
> the future as a collection point for documentation patches which don't
> have a more obvious tree to travel through.

Getting doc patches merged can be slow sometimes (slower than needed),
but I'm still having success at it.

-- 
~Randy
--
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/