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]

Message-ID: <CAKXUXMz-aTN3qrOmacWT_12awUT4wYTH8sr7SEc4B6XiYtz-BA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:28:10 +0100
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category

Hi Jani,

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 1:48 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I have done that. In my humble personal opinion, at the moment, the
subheadings look a bit too large in the HTML view compared to the few
points below.
However, I am planning to add more points to the checklist anyway when
I understand and have summarized the essence of the other documents
for patch submissions (submitting-patches and howto).

So, let us make them subheadings.

> > +
> >  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.
>

Done that. I used "#." to still have the numbering in place.

The two changes are straightforward, and I will send them out as a v2
series, once Randy has had time to provide his feedback on the content
of the v1 patch and I have included his review remarks.


Lukas