The mm documentation is, well, not entirely up to date. We can opt for dropping the outdated parts, which would generate a nice negative diffstat, but identifying the outdated documentation requires nearly as much effort as updating it, so I think that making and keeping the docs up to date would be a better option. I'd like to discuss what can be done process-wise to improve the situation. Some points I had in mind: * Pay more attention to docs during review * Set an expectation level for docs accompanying a changeset * Spend some cycles to review and update the existing docs * Spend some more cycles to add new documentation I'd appreciate a discussion about how we can get to the second edition of "Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager", what are the gaps (although they are too many), and what would be the best way to close these gaps. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
