lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:47:34AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:36:36 +0200
> Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:56:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > > The point of this review process is that userspace using the new uAPI
> > > can actually live with the uAPI being provided, and it's hard to know
> > > that without having actually looked into a kernel patch yourself.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> > > Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > > index 8e5545dfbf82..298424b98d99 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > > @@ -85,7 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
> > > - The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that
> > > userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the
> > > mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the
> > > - job done.
> > > + job done. The userspace-side reviewer should also provide at least an
> > > + Acked-by on the kernel uAPI patch indicating that they've looked at how the
> > > + kernel side is implementing the new feature being used.
> >
> > Answers a question that just recently came up on merging new kms
> > properties.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>
> Hi,
>
> for the record, I personally will not be able to provide such Acked-by
> tag according to kernel review rules, because I am completely unfamiliar
> with kernel DRM internals and cannot review kernel code at all. This
> might make people expecting Weston to prove their uAPI disappointed,
> since there are very few Weston reviewers available.
>
> If you meant something else, please word it to that you actually meant.

Hm right, that wording is putting a bit too high a bar. We want the
userspace view point here, not force userspace people to review kernel
code. I'll try to clarify this a bit better.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-21 10:27    [W:0.068 / U:3.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site