Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:35:27 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] genalloc: track beginning of allocations
Message-ID: <20180221153527.12e7d12c@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+zRQfxRXoSC5G8EjeSkPkpeMxfedJbHEgFyYcyXWmW9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180212165301.17933-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
        <20180212165301.17933-2-igor.stoppa@huawei.com>
        <CAGXu5jJWLdsBr-6mXiFQprT-=h2qhhXAWRLQ+EaKKiubKOQOfw@mail.gmail.com>
        <daaee36a-e6c7-8fbf-b758-ecee5106da9a@huawei.com>
        <CAGXu5j+zRQfxRXoSC5G8EjeSkPkpeMxfedJbHEgFyYcyXWmW9w@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:29:06 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.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