linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: iostats: Rewrite intro, remove outdated formats

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: <87frkgzfwg.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:48:15 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: David Reaver <me@...idreaver.com>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: David Reaver <me@...idreaver.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: iostats: Rewrite intro, remove outdated formats

David Reaver <me@...idreaver.com> writes:

> The discussion of file formats for very old kernel versions obscured the
> key information in this document. Additionally, the introduction was
> missing a discussion of flush fields added in b6866318657 ("block: add
> iostat counters for flush requests") [1].
>
> Rewrite the introduction to discuss only the current kernel's disk I/O stat
> file formats. Also, clean up wording to be more concise.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/157433282607.7928.5202409984272248322.stgit@buzz/T/ [1]
>
> Signed-off-by: David Reaver <me@...idreaver.com>
> ---
>
> Thanks for the encouragement Randy. Here is a rewrite of the intro.
>
> This patch is mutually exclusive with the original patch I started this
> thread with. Let me know if I should submit it as a standalone thread.
> (I'm fairly new to contributing to the kernel.)

As a separate thread is generally better; no need to resend, though, if
there are no other changes.

But ... I'm not quite sure what "mutually exclusive" means here.  That
they don't conflict, or that they cannot both be applied...?

Thanks,

jon