On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 06:53:05PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > 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 dropping the outdated parts, which would generate a nice negative 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 diffstat, but identifying the outdated documentation requires nearly 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 As a newcomer to the MM area of the kernel I would like to see more of this as well. Ira > > 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. > >
