linux-kernel - Re: [patch] proc.txt: Update kernel filesystem/proc.txt documentation

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]

Date:	Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:13:23 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] proc.txt: Update kernel filesystem/proc.txt
 documentation

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:53:27 +0200
Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.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@...bold.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 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/