|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-kernel.org> |
|| ||Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH 1/1] scheduler: minor improvement to
pick_next_highest_task_rt in linux-3.3 |
|| ||Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:50:13 +0100|
|| ||"Michael J. Wang" <mjwang-AT-broadcom.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0-AT-gmail.com>,
|| ||Article, Thread
* Peter Zijlstra <email@example.com> 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.
to post comments)