Hi Peter, On 04/08/2015 04:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
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 enoughI 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.
Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you, Juri and Henrik) by sending incremental patches based on these ones (since I see you queued these patches), or should I resend everything after addressing the various comments? Thanks, Luca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
