[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:31 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > * Do not use custom To: and Cc: for individual patches. We want to see the
> > whole series, even patches that potentially need to go through a different
> > subsystem tree.

That's not currently feasible when cc'ing any list
as those lists have a maximum email header size and patches that
span multiple subsystems can have very long to: and cc: lists.

> > * The patch must compile without warnings (make C=1 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__")
> > and does not incur any zeroday test robot complaints.
> How about adding W=1 to that make command?

That's rather too compiler version dependent and new
warnings frequently get introduced by new compiler versions.

> How about existing drivers that trigger tons of endianness warnings,
> e.g. qla2xxx? How about requiring that no new warnings are introduced?

Adding a sparse clean C=2 requirement might be useful.

> > * The patch must have a commit message that describes, comprehensively and in
> > plain English, what the patch does.
> How about making this requirement more detailed and requiring that not
> only what has been changed is document but also why that change has been
> made?

I believe the "why" is rather more important than the "how"
and should be the primary thing described in the commit message.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-12 17:35    [W:0.188 / U:6.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site