linux-kernel - Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not 1/0)

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:	Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:27:28 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was:
 Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not
 1/0)

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:18:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of 
> > > trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
> > 
> > I totally agree, it's not "against" the code of conflict that I 
> > helped write.
> > 
> > Joe, you know better than to send trivial stuff to maintainers who 
> > don't want it.  Send it through the trivial maintainer for 
> > subsystems that have expressed annoyance at this, it's not the first 
> > time this has happened.
> 
> I argue that they should not be sent _at all_ in such cases, not even 
> via the trivial tree: firstly because typically I'll pick up the bits 
> from the trivial tree as well, and secondly because most of the 
> arguments I listed against bulk trivial commits (weaker bisectability, 
> taking up reviewer bandwidth, taking up Git space, etc.) still stand.

I agree, I do not want actual code changes to by-pass me for the
subsystems I'm responsible for.

Typoes in comments I can live with, but I want to see each and every
patch that changes actual code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/