On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:53 PM Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:40:26 +0200 Alexander Potapenko [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
There are unchangelogged alterations between v9 and v10. The
replacement of IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING)) with
page_poisoning_enabled().
In the case I send another version of the patch, do I need to
retroactively add them to the changelog?
I don't think the world could stand another version ;)
Please simply explain this change for the reviewers?
As Qian Cai mentioned in the comments to v9:
Yes, only checking CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING is not enough, and need to check
page_poisoning_enabled().
Actually, page_poisoning_enabled() is enough, because it checks for
CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING itself.
Therefore I've just replaced IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_POISONING)) with
page_poisoning_enabled().
--
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer
Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München
Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg