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: <20230720-mace-dipped-3bd066667b3f@spud>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 23:23:46 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	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 02:37:46PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:15:26 +0100 Conor Dooley wrote:
> > ..I noticed that none of these sections address actually testing the
> > code they're responsible for on a (semi-)regular basis. Sure, that comes
> > as part of reviewing the patches for their code, but changes to other
> > subsystems that a driver/feature maintainer probably would not have been
> > CCed on may cause problems for the code they maintain.
> > If we are adding a doc about best-practice for maintainers, I think we
> > should be encouraging people to test regularly.

> I think our testing story is too shaky to make that a requirement.
> Differently put - I was never able to get good upstream testing running
> when I worked for a vendor myself so I wouldn't know how to draw 
> the lines.

I'm not saying it needs to be added as a must level item, some words to the
effect of
  Maintainers should test the drivers/features they are responsible for on a
  regular basis, independent of patches that modify their area of
  responsibility. This helps ensure that changes to other parts of the kernel
  do not introduce regressions in their driver/feature."
would suffice IMO.

The doc as it is is a useful addition though, so you can add a
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
if you like.

Thanks,
Conor.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)