netdev - Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers

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: <2023072012-subzero-maturity-b6cd@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 20:26:27 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, corbet@....net,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info, kvalo@...nel.org,
	benjamin.poirier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:23:56PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> > on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> > maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> > of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> > or a single network protocol.
> > 
> > Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc
> > will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Thanks for writing this.  One question—
> 
> > +Reviews
> > +-------
> > +
> > +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers,
> > +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies
> > +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer.
> 
> Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches
>  sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already
>  been nacked as worthless churn?  I've generally been assuming I can ignore
>  those, do I need to make sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat
>  of what's already been said elsewhere?

No, you can ignore them if you don't want to take them :)