Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:35:27 -0700 From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.