Change kernel version from 3.20 to 4.1
Signed-off-by: Chen Hanxiao <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
index c3b6b30..1cc7155 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ asynchronous manner and the value may not be very precise. To see a precise
snapshot of a moment, you can see /proc/<pid>/smaps file and scan page table.
It's slow but very precise.
-Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 3.20.0)
+Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.1)
..............................................................................
Field Content
Name filename of the executable
--
2.1.0
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:48:23 -0400
Chen Hanxiao <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for working to update the documentation! That said, though, I
have a question and a request with regard to this particular change.
> -Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 3.20.0)
> +Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.1)
That file is full of weird version numbers; is there a reason why you want
to change that one in particular? The 2.6.8-rc3 reference immediately
afterward doesn't seem more worthy of protection.
This file is dramatically out of date in general. Rather than change the
version number at the head of the list of status files, why not update the
list to match current reality? There are a lot of things missing.
Failing that, I would entertain a patch that simply removes most of the
version numbers from this file; I don't think they provide any useful
information, and I certainly don't see the value of occasionally tweaking
them forward.
Thanks,
jon
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Corbet [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:14 PM
> To: Chen, Hanxiao/?? ????
> Cc: Andrew Morton; Nathan Scott; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Jiri Kosina
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Docs: proc: fix kernel version
>
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:48:23 -0400
> Chen Hanxiao <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for working to update the documentation! That said, though, I
> have a question and a request with regard to this particular change.
>
> > -Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 3.20.0)
> > +Table 1-2: Contents of the status files (as of 4.1)
>
> That file is full of weird version numbers; is there a reason why you want
> to change that one in particular? The 2.6.8-rc3 reference immediately
> afterward doesn't seem more worthy of protection.
>
commit 15eb42d674de8da66950f78b5c7202accabe026e
had updated Table 1-2 in this doc.
When we posted it, we thought it's for in 3.20.
Now it comes to mainline from mm tree, it's 4.1 now.
So I think we need a surplus patch for it.
Also, patch Reviewed-by: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
> This file is dramatically out of date in general. Rather than change the
> version number at the head of the list of status files, why not update the
> list to match current reality? There are a lot of things missing.
>
> Failing that, I would entertain a patch that simply removes most of the
> version numbers from this file; I don't think they provide any useful
> information, and I certainly don't see the value of occasionally tweaking
> them forward.
Before someone could be able to update the whole file,
keeping version numbers still help.
Regards,
- Chen
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay? ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 02:58:50 +0000
"Chen, Hanxiao" <[email protected]> wrote:
> When we posted it, we thought it's for in 3.20.
> Now it comes to mainline from mm tree, it's 4.1 now.
> So I think we need a surplus patch for it.
So be it...applied to the docs tree.
jon