linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

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]

Message-ID: <mhng-ff930dda-c0ba-447c-9753-03dee62ba21c@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:29:47 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
CC:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        krste@...keley.edu, waterman@...s.berkeley.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:44:39 PST (-0800), Paul Walmsley wrote:
>
> Formalize, in kernel documentation, the patch acceptance policy for
> arch/riscv.  In summary, it states that as maintainers, we plan to only
> accept patches for new modules or extensions that have been frozen or
> ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
>
> We've been following these guidelines for the past few months.  In the
> meantime, we've received quite a bit of feedback that it would be
> helpful to have these guidelines formally documented.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
> Cc: Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
> Cc: Krste Asanovic <krste@...keley.edu>
> Cc: Andrew Waterman <waterman@...s.berkeley.edu>
> ---
>  Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2e658353b53c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +====================================================
> +arch/riscv maintenance and the RISC-V specifications
> +====================================================
> +
> +The RISC-V instruction set architecture is developed in the open:
> +in-progress drafts are available for all to review and to experiment
> +with implementations.  New module or extension drafts can change
> +during the development process - sometimes in ways that are
> +incompatible with previous drafts.  This flexibility can present a
> +challenge for RISC-V Linux maintenance.  Linux maintainers disapprove
> +of churn, and the Linux development process prefers well-reviewed and
> +tested code over experimental code.  We wish to extend these same
> +principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
> +inclusion in the kernel.
> +
> +Therefore, as maintainers, we'll only accept patches for new modules
> +or extensions if the specifications for those modules or extensions
> +are listed as being "Frozen" or "Ratified" by the RISC-V Foundation.
> +(Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees that
> +contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
> +
> +Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementors to create
> +their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
> +to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
> +Foundation.  To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
> +performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
> +RISC-V extensions, we'll only to accept patches for extensions that
> +have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
> +(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
> +containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.)

Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>