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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231523390.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:27:19 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
cc:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, palmer@...belt.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, krste@...keley.edu,
        waterman@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

Hi Jon,

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:44:39 -0800 (PST) Paul Walmsley 
> <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> 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.
> 
> If at all possible, I would really love to have this be part of the
> maintainer profile documentation:
> 
> 	https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
> 
> ...if we could only (hint...CC'd...) get Dan to resubmit it with the
> needed tweaks so it could be merged...

It looks like the main thing that would be needed would be to add the P: 
entry with the path to our patch-acceptance.rst file into the MAINTAINERS 
file, after Dan's patches are merged. 

Of course, we could also add more information about sparse cleanliness, 
checkpatch warnings, etc., but we mostly try to follow the common kernel 
guidelines there.

Is that summary accurate, or did I miss some additional steps?


- Paul