[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629071338.m4veigbp4tu45gbz@beryllium.lan>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:13:38 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
ben.widawsky@...el.com, alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
tobin@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: restore zone_reclaim_mode ABI
Hi Dave,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:53:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Was there something else specifically in the documentation which you
> think I've neglected?
The first paragraph explains how you ended up modifying the code. While
I understand that you want to document the process, it wont help
a reader in future. It doesn't add any intersting information at all.
Just state what you're doing as first thing and explain why you are
doing it after it.
> > I think the documentation update should not be part of this patch.
> > This makes the back porting to stable more difficult.
>
> Really? If a backporter doesn't care about documentation, I'd just
> expect them to see the reject, ignore it, and move on with their life.
> If they do, they'd want the code fix and the Documentation/ update in
> the same patch so that they don't get disconnected.
I understood you are fixing a regression ingroduced by a previous change. In
this case I would only fix the regression. Updating/improving the
documentation is good, I just don't think it's necessary to back port it to
stables trees along side the bug fix.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists