On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I wonder if this might be more readable by splitting the kernel-doc > >> changes from the bitmap changes? I.e. fix all the kernel-doc in one > >> patch, and in the following, make the bitmap changes. Maybe it's such > >> a small part that it doesn't matter, though? > > > > I had the same thought, but then I would have made most of the kerneldoc > > changes to something that would be altered by the following patch, > > because it would have made little sense to fix only those parts that > > would have survived. > > > > If it is really a problem to keep them together, I could put these > > changes in a following patch. Would that be ok? > > Hmmm... I think keeping it as-is would be better than a trailing > docs-only patch. Maybe Jon has an opinion? I would be inclined to agree. Putting docs changes with the associated code changes helps to document the patch itself, among other things. I wouldn't split them up. jon -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
