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: <1d136db7-4c39-4b56-86fc-3840b1395b4d@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:31:11 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, corbet@....net,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...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:

> > +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?

Yeah, it's this sort of stuff that makes me concerned about the "must"
wording.  I'd say it's obviously reasonable to ignore such things.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)