Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934714AbdCVQZO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:25:14 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]:33386 "EHLO mail-vk0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934637AbdCVQZE (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:25:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170322141808.icah4ygikteqbqdo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170310204743.12872-1-joelaf@google.com> <20170322141808.icah4ygikteqbqdo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Joel Fernandes Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:25:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: write better comments for weight calculations To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: LKML , Juri Lelli , Patrick Bellasi , Dietmar Eggemann , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 659 Lines: 17 On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:47:43PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> This patch rewrites comments related task priorities and CPU usage >> along with an example to show how it works. > > To what purpose? Bigger word count? The intention is to improve the comments to make it more understandable (the weight calculations, factor of 1.25 etc). On reading through the comments the first time, I felt they could be improved. Is your concern more about the addition of an example increasing the word-count? Perhaps you'd rather this be added to Documentation/ instead? Regards, Joel