linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8734ymvbds.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date:   Sat, 07 Oct 2023 06:57:03 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
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: Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Test: tag

Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> writes:

> 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(-)

Do we really want to do this?  To me, it almost seems like it codifies
the idea that sending *untested* patches is OK as long as you leave out
the tag.

Others may disagree, but I don't think we need yet another tag for this.
Testing of patches before sending them should be the norm; if special
notes about testing are needed, they can go in or below the changelog,
as appropriate.

Thanks,

jon