On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:53 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:40:26 +0200 Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > There are unchangelogged alterations between v9 and v10. The > > > replacement of IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING)) with > > > page_poisoning_enabled(). > > In the case I send another version of the patch, do I need to > > retroactively add them to the changelog? > > I don't think the world could stand another version ;) > > Please simply explain this change for the reviewers? As Qian Cai mentioned in the comments to v9: > Yes, only checking CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING is not enough, and need to check > page_poisoning_enabled(). Actually, page_poisoning_enabled() is enough, because it checks for CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING itself. Therefore I've just replaced IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING)) with page_poisoning_enabled(). -- Alexander Potapenko Software Engineer Google Germany GmbH Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 80636 München Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
