linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5 -v2] acpi, apei, Document for APEI

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, 15 Dec 2009 23:32:16 -0500 (EST)
From:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 -v2] acpi, apei, Document for APEI

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Huang Ying wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:58 +0800, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: 
> > On Thursday 10 December 2009 12:17:04 am Huang Ying wrote:
> > > Add document for APEI, including kernel parameters and EINJ debug file
> > > sytem interface.
> > 
> > From a stylistic point of view, I think it's better if the
> > documentation is added by the same patch that adds the functionality.
> > Having them in separate patches means there's a point in time where
> > the tree contains the functionality but not the documentation, or
> > vice versa.
> 
> Sounds reasonable, I will change this.

I don't mind if the documentation preceeds or follows the code
in a patch series.  Personally, I'd probably put it in its own
patch like you did just as a lazy way to keep the patches small.
Anybody looking at this code will be looking at the whole series
and it isn't as if documentation is going to break bisect...

What I do mind from a patch submitting style point of view
is to start a series with [PATCH 2/5 -v2].

Please start with 0/5 explaining the difference between v1 and v2;
and then number staring with 1, not 2; else at first glance,
everybody thinks that the most important patch is missing...

That said, all this code is under its own config option,
making it relatively low risk.  The question is if there
would be a significant benefit to merging this code upstream
while we know there is still going to be some significant
movement in this area before it is fully baked...

(that would be another thing to describe in 0/5...)

thanks,
-Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/