Re: [PATCH 1/1] scheduler: minor improvement to pick_next_highest_task_rt in linux-3.3

[Posted March 28, 2012 by corbet]

From:		Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org>
To:		Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org>
Subject:		Re: [PATCH 1/1] scheduler: minor improvement to pick_next_highest_task_rt in linux-3.3
Date:		Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:13 +0100
Message-ID:		<20120322075013.GB31810@gmail.com>
Cc:		"Michael J. Wang" <mjwang-AT-broadcom.com>, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0-AT-gmail.com>, "mingo-AT-elte.hu" <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, "linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, "rostedt-AT-goodmis.org" <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>
Archive‑link:		Article


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 18:33 +0000, Michael J. Wang wrote:
> > 
> > OK.  Thanks.  I was afraid the details were too verbose when the fix
> > was obvious to the experts.  Anyways, I now know the format you
> > are expecting, so I will do better next time. 
> 
> Since you took the trouble to write it, I thought it worth the trouble
> to include.
> 
> Very often Changelogs are way too spartan (my own included), I can't
> recall the amount of times I've kicked myself for leaving out some - at
> the time - obvious details.
> 
> So I prefer people to go overboard a bit and err on the side 
> of too much information :-)

Yeah. Current trends are: for every 1000 patches sent there's 
maybe one patch that has a tad too much information in its 
changelog - but instead offers good entertainment in the 
changelog so it's still perfectly fine. 990 patches have too 
little information. The remaining 9 are just fine.

Thanks,

	Ingo