On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:59:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you, Juri
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.