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.2.21.9999.1911231546450.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:49:56 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, krste@...keley.edu,
        waterman@...s.berkeley.edu,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Dan Williams wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> 
> Those could likely be automated to highlight warnings that a given
> subsystem treats as errors, but wherever possible my expectation is
> that the policy should be specified globally.
> 
> > Is that summary accurate, or did I miss some additional steps?
> 
> I'll go fixup and get the into patch submitted today then we can go from 
> there.

I guess I'm still looking for guidance along the lines of my earlier 
question: what (if anything) would we need to change about the current 
patch to have it work with the maintainer profile documentation (beyond 
the "P:" entry in MAINTAINERS) ?


- Paul