From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=3.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46537C433DF for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27879206E2 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732726AbgF2Tej (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:34:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36738 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1733155AbgF2Tb0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:31:26 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA306AF39; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:13:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:13:38 +0200 From: Daniel Wagner To: Dave Hansen Cc: Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ben.widawsky@intel.com, alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com, tobin@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: restore zone_reclaim_mode ABI Message-ID: <20200629071338.m4veigbp4tu45gbz@beryllium.lan> References: <20200626003459.D8E015CA@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20200626075918.dj6ioaon5iuhtg6k@beryllium.lan> <83731eeb-1f64-50b7-41e9-5b7114678533@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83731eeb-1f64-50b7-41e9-5b7114678533@intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dave, On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:53:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > Was there something else specifically in the documentation which you > think I've neglected? The first paragraph explains how you ended up modifying the code. While I understand that you want to document the process, it wont help a reader in future. It doesn't add any intersting information at all. Just state what you're doing as first thing and explain why you are doing it after it. > > I think the documentation update should not be part of this patch. > > This makes the back porting to stable more difficult. > > Really? If a backporter doesn't care about documentation, I'd just > expect them to see the reject, ignore it, and move on with their life. > If they do, they'd want the code fix and the Documentation/ update in > the same patch so that they don't get disconnected. I understood you are fixing a regression ingroduced by a previous change. In this case I would only fix the regression. Updating/improving the documentation is good, I just don't think it's necessary to back port it to stables trees along side the bug fix. Thanks, Daniel