netdev - Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:23:56 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, corbet@....net
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info, kvalo@...nel.org,
 benjamin.poirier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers

On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> or a single network protocol.
> 
> Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc
> will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---

Thanks for writing this.  One question—

> +Reviews
> +-------
> +
> +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers,
> +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies
> +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer.

Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches
 sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already
 been nacked as worthless churn?  I've generally been assuming I can ignore
 those, do I need to make sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat
 of what's already been said elsewhere?

-ed