[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180221153527.12e7d12c@lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:35:27 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Matthew Wilcox
<willy@...radead.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Michal Hocko
<mhocko@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jerome Glisse
<jglisse@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Christoph
Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-security-module
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc
> >> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one
> >> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such
> >> a small part that it doesn't matter, though?
> >
> > I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc
> > changes to something that would be altered by the following patch,
> > because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that
> > would have survived.
> >
> > If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these
> > changes in a following patch. Would that be ok?
>
> Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing
> docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion?
I would be inclined to agree. Putting docs changes with the associated
code changes helps to document the patch itself, among other things. I
wouldn't split them up.
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
