Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 09 Apr 2015 11:13:10 +0200 | From | Luca Abeni <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/4] SCHED_DEADLINE documentation update |
| |
Hi Peter,
On 04/08/2015 04:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 01:59:36PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> here is the promised update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt. >> I send it as an RFC because of the following doubts: >> 1) I split the patches trying to isolate related changes. So, >> - the first patch fixes 2 typos that I noticed when updating the >> documentation >> - the second patch is based on Zhiqiang Zhang's patch and fixes some >> inconsistencies in the symbols used for period and execution times >> - the third patch adds a small discussion about admission tests for EDF on >> single processor systems >> - the fourth patch discusses the multi-processor case, adding some missing >> references >> I am not sure if this split is ok, or if I should do something different >> (should I put all of the changes in a single patch?) > > This is indeed the preferred way. > >> 2) The second patch is partly by me and partly by Zhiqiang Zhang. I do not >> know how to preserve Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship, so I added "Based on a >> patch by Zhiqiang Zhang" in the changelog. But I am not sure if this is >> the correct thing to do (maybe I should split this in 2 different patches?) > > This is not uncommon practise and works for me. > >> 3) I re-read the added text multiple times, and it looks ok to me... But I am >> not a native speaker, so it might contain English errors or sentences that >> are not clear enough > > I send the one comment I had in reply to the relevant email. > > Other than that it looked good to me so I've queued these patches. Ok; so how should I proceed? Should I address the various comments (by you, Juri and Henrik) by sending incremental patches based on these ones (since I see you queued these patches), or should I resend everything after addressing the various comments?
Thanks, Luca
|  |