[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALzav=feThT9Gng8hJy54VDNO=m=ywpzUKyKjjLmj5ZFWUBJuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:05:14 -0800
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
"Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"vipinsh@...gle.com" <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
"ajones@...tanamicro.com" <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/18] KVM selftests code consolidation and cleanup
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:19 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 8:49 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > Anyways, if someone wants to pursue this, these ideas and the "requirement" should
> > > be run by the checkpatch maintainers. They have far more experience and authority
> > > in this area, and I suspect we aren't the first people to want checkpatch to get
> > > involved in enforcing shortlog scope.
> >
> > Documenting would at least be an improvement over what we have today
> > since it would eliminate the need to re-explain the preferred rules
> > every time. We can just point to the documentation when reviewing
> > patches.
>
> Agreed. And there are many other things I want to formalize for KVM x86, e.g.
> testing expectations, health requirements for the various branches, what each
> branch is used for etc...
>
> If you want to send a patch for the shortlogs thing, maybe create
>
> Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst
>
> and link it into Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst?
Can do. I'll try to take a look later this week or next week.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists