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]

Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:01:25 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.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, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:50 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:
>
> 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) ?

Oh, sorry, I just reacted to Jon's comments. I took a look, and I
think the content would just need to be organized into the proposed
sections. The rules about what level of ratification a specification
needs to receive before a patch will be received sounds like an
extension to the Submit Checklist to me. So I'd say just format your
first paragraph into the Overview section and the other 2 into Submit
Checklist and call it good.