On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Huang Ying wrote: > On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 00:58 +0800, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thursday 10 December 2009 12:17:04 am Huang Ying wrote: > > > Add document for APEI, including kernel parameters and EINJ debug file > > > sytem interface. > > > > From a stylistic point of view, I think it's better if the > > documentation is added by the same patch that adds the functionality. > > Having them in separate patches means there's a point in time where > > the tree contains the functionality but not the documentation, or > > vice versa. > > Sounds reasonable, I will change this. I don't mind if the documentation preceeds or follows the code in a patch series. Personally, I'd probably put it in its own patch like you did just as a lazy way to keep the patches small. Anybody looking at this code will be looking at the whole series and it isn't as if documentation is going to break bisect... What I do mind from a patch submitting style point of view is to start a series with [PATCH 2/5 -v2]. Please start with 0/5 explaining the difference between v1 and v2; and then number staring with 1, not 2; else at first glance, everybody thinks that the most important patch is missing... That said, all this code is under its own config option, making it relatively low risk. The question is if there would be a significant benefit to merging this code upstream while we know there is still going to be some significant movement in this area before it is fully baked... (that would be another thing to describe in 0/5...) thanks, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
