linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category

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: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:48:36 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet
 <corbet@....net>, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lukas
 Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
> index b1bc2d37bd0a..7d8dba942fe8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
> @@ -11,110 +11,121 @@ These are all above and beyond the documentation that is provided in
>  and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches.
>  
>  
> +*Review your code:*

If you're adding subheadings, maybe consider making them actual
subheadings instead of just italicizing them.

The top heading should probably be modified to follow the guidelines in
Documentation/doc-guide/sphinx.rst. This should be a separate change.

> +
>  1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
>     that facility.  Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
>     that you use.
>  
> -2) Builds cleanly:
> +2) Check your patch for general style as detailed in
> +   :ref:`Documentation/process/coding-style.rst <codingstyle>`.
>  
> -  a) with applicable or modified ``CONFIG`` options ``=y``, ``=m``, and
> -     ``=n``.  No ``gcc`` warnings/errors, no linker warnings/errors.
> +3) All memory barriers {e.g., ``barrier()``, ``rmb()``, ``wmb()``} need a
> +   comment in the source code that explains the logic of what they are doing
> +   and why.

I think we should just remove all the manually updated bullet
numbering. Either make them bulleted lists with "*" or autonumbered
lists with "#.". See [1]. This should be a separate change.

BR,
Jani.


[1] https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/usage/restructuredtext/basics.html#lists-and-quote-like-blocks


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel