Re: [RFC 0/4] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:59:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> here is the promised update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
> I send it as an RFC because of the following doubts:
> 1) I split the patches trying to isolate related changes. So,
>    - the first patch fixes 2 typos that I noticed when updating the
>      documentation
>    - the second patch is based on Zhiqiang Zhang's patch and fixes some
>      inconsistencies in the symbols used for period and execution times
>    - the third patch adds a small discussion about admission tests for EDF on
>      single processor systems
>    - the fourth patch discusses the multi-processor case, adding some missing
>      references
>    I am not sure if this split is ok, or if I should do something different
>    (should I put all of the changes in a single patch?)

This is indeed the preferred way.

> 2) The second patch is partly by me and partly by Zhiqiang Zhang. I do not
>    know how to preserve Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship, so I added "Based on a
>    patch by Zhiqiang Zhang" in the changelog. But I am not sure if this is
>    the correct thing to do (maybe I should split this in 2 different patches?)

This is not uncommon practise and works for me.

> 3) I re-read the added text multiple times, and it looks ok to me... But I am
>    not a native speaker, so it might contain English errors or sentences that
>    are not clear enough

I send the one comment I had in reply to the relevant email.

Other than that it looked good to me so I've queued these patches.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/