Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Corbet [mailto:corbet@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:14 PM > To: Chen, Hanxiao/陈 晗霄 > Cc: Andrew Morton; Nathan Scott; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jiri Kosina > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: proc: fix kernel version > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:48:23 -0400 > Chen Hanxiao <chenhanxiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thank you for working to update the documentation! That said, though, I > have a question and a request with regard to this particular change. > > > -Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 3.20.0) > > +Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.1) > > That file is full of weird version numbers; is there a reason why you want > to change that one in particular? The 2.6.8-rc3 reference immediately > afterward doesn't seem more worthy of protection. > commit 15eb42d674de8da66950f78b5c7202accabe026e had updated Table 1-2 in this doc. When we posted it, we thought it's for in 3.20. Now it comes to mainline from mm tree, it's 4.1 now. So I think we need a surplus patch for it. Also, patch Reviewed-by: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> > This file is dramatically out of date in general. Rather than change the > version number at the head of the list of status files, why not update the > list to match current reality? There are a lot of things missing. > > Failing that, I would entertain a patch that simply removes most of the > version numbers from this file; I don't think they provide any useful > information, and I certainly don't see the value of occasionally tweaking > them forward. Before someone could be able to update the whole file, keeping version numbers still help. Regards, - Chen > > Thanks, > > jon ?韬{.n?????%??檩??w?{.n???{饼???骅w* jg????????G??⒏ ⒎?:+v???????? ????＂??????
