linux-kernel - [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 07 Oct 2023 02:43:08 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
Subject: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag

Currently, we blindly trust the submitters that they both compiled their
code at all, tested it on a relevant device, and have done so in a manner
that made sense for a given changeset.

If at least two of these three things were always true, the review
workflow would be much more exciting.

Introduce a new Test: tag to help submitters express the way the patch
was tested, making it easier to understand for reviewers and maintainers
whether it was tested, and if so, whether that test was sufficient.

I originally found something like this on Google's Android kernel repos
and loved the concept.

Test: make htmldocs and manual examination
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 3fcfa029c9b3..c3fda5743ca7 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
 	Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@...uthor.example.org>
 
 
-Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
+Using informative tags:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
@@ -600,6 +600,22 @@ process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org on all stable
 patch candidates. For more information, please read
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
 
+A Test: tag confirms that the patch was actually tested by the submitter and
+helps reviewers determine whether the testing procedure made sense for a given
+changeset. The latter in particular, may bring attention to errors in the
+testing procedure and prompt a more in-depth examination of a patch.
+
+Commonly, ``Test: Smoke test on [device name]`` may be used to signify that:
+
+	 (a) The kernel compiled successfully with the default defconfig.
+
+	 (b) The device has successfully booted the image from point (a), with
+	     no apparent loss in functionality compared to the state before this
+	     patch was applied.
+
+	 (c) The submitter believes in good faith, that such simple test is
+	     enough, given the scope of the patch.
+
 .. _the_canonical_patch_format:
 
 The canonical patch format

---
base-commit: 0f0fe5040de5e5fd9b040672e37725b046e312f0
change-id: 20231007-topic-test_tag-72bca62617f9

Best regards,
-- 
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>