On Fri, 16 May 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
quoted text
> 
> I'll put a shortlog and diffstat at the end of this message.  For
> completeness, there's also a list of files I examined and did *not* change.

May I suggest just adding a comment in those files, just saying something 
like

	/* This does not need the BKL, because .. */

where even the "because" part could be dropped when it's really obvious.

That way that "list of files I examined and did *not* change" would be 
obvious in the patch itself, and we also have some documentation that 
somebody actually looked at the path.

quoted text
> Assuming nobody tells me I'm completely off-base, I guess my next step is
> to start running individual patches past maintainers.  Some of them,
> probably (I hope), will tell me that I've been wasting my time and that
> their code doesn't need the BKL.  In such cases, I'll gladly drop the
> associated patch.

Same deal - just document the fact that the BKL isn't needed.

Yeah, in the long run that kind of documentation is worthless and we may 
want to get rid of it again in a year or two, but in the short run it's a 
good idea. If only to help people who want to review your patches.

Btw, do you have gitweb running anywhere? 

		Linus
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/