linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ALSA: Add debugging guide for audio issues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABCoZhAmsXN2e1RoAudUzYDNa6dU-orUPojp0S4jixqUtEt4ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:16:55 -0800
From: anish kumar <yesanishhere@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, 
	perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com, 
	Sebastian Fricke <sebastian.fricke@...labora.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ALSA: Add debugging guide for audio issues

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:26 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
>
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> writes:
>
> > On 11/7/24 2:25 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> >> If we really want to separate the mechanics of kernel development from
> >> the associated process information - not always an easy separation, IMO
> >> - we could make a top-level "development" directory, put a lot of the
> >> other relevant stuff there, and include the debugging stuff.  It seems
> >> really weird to put debugging by itself, though; it's only part of the
> >> picture.
> >
> > I could go with that.
> >
> >>
> >> Why is Documentation/process so bad?
> >
> > Documentation/process/ is meta-documentation about kernel social "standards"
> > among other things. It is "soft" documentation, whereas debugging (IMHO) is
> > "hard" documentation.
> >
> > But hey, it's all your baby. Do whatever pleases you. :)
>
> Hopefully not all mine...:)
>
> My suggestion is to put it under process for now just to not block
> forward progress on this work.  We can surely relocate it if we want to
> make a proper development-processes top-level directory in the future.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon

Hi Jonathan,

I wanted to check with you regarding the timing for sending the patch.
Should I go ahead and submit an updated version after relocating it
under the process/debugging section?