linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <552BB8E9.5000303@unitn.it>
Date:	Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:39:05 +0200
From:	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	peterz@...radead.org, henrik@...tad.us, juri.lelli@...il.com,
	raistlin@...ux.it, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update

Hi,

On 04/12/2015 11:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here is an update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
>> Respect to the RFC I sent few days ago, I:
>> 1) Split the patches in a better way, (so that, for example, Zhiqiang Zhang's
>>     authorship is preserved)
>> 2) Tried to address all the comments I received on the RFC
>> 3) Added another patch, to split Section 3 in various subsections.
>>     I think it is more readable in this way. Anyway, this is the last patch,
>>     so it can easily be skipped if people do not like it.
>>
>> I also split in a separate patch the discussion about the relationship between
>> tasks' parameters and SCHED_DEADLINE parameters. This is (I think) the only
>> part of the patchset that has not been previously discussed; I decided to
>> isolate it in its own patch so that other patches can be applied anyway.
>
> Note that your Signed-off-by lines are missing.
Ops... I knew I was doing something wrong...


> I also noticed the following inconsistency: 'utilization' (and
> variants) is spelled in two variants in the text: 'utilization' and
> 'utilisation'.
>
> I'd strongly suggest using 'utilization' et al (american spelling),
> because that's how it's spelled in most of the kernel source.
Sorry about that... I have ispell configured to use the british dictionary
as a default.
I think this inconsistency already existed before my patches... So, what should
I do? Should I resend the patchset, adding a patch to convert from british to
american spelling before my new changes? Or can the patches be committed as they
are now, and then I send a follow-up patch to convert the spelling?

In any case, I'll send the new version of the patchset or the follow-up patch
(depending on what is the preferred thing) later this week, on Thursday or on
Friday (right now I am overloaded with work-related stuff).


			Thanks,
				Luca
--
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/