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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8270f9b2-ec07-4f07-86cf-425d25829453@lunn.ch> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 20:41:19 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, sd@...asysnail.net, horms@...ge.net.au Subject: Re: [RFC] docs: netdev: encourage reviewers On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 09:30:07AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Add a section to our maintainer doc encouraging reviewers > to chime in on the mailing list. > > The questions about "when is it okay to share feedback" > keep coming up (most recently at netconf) and the answer > is "pretty much always". > > The contents are partially based on a doc we wrote earlier > and shared with the vendors (for the "driver review rotation"). > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> > -- > CC: andrew@...n.ch > CC: jesse.brandeburg@...el.com > CC: sd@...asysnail.net > CC: horms@...ge.net.au > > Sending as RFC for early round of reviews before I CC docs@ > and expose this to potentially less constructive feedback :) We already have: https://docs.kernel.org/process/7.AdvancedTopics.html#reviewing-patches which has some of the same concepts. I don't think anything in the proposed new text is specific to netdev, unlike most of the rest of maintainer-netdev.rst which does reference netdev specific rules or concepts. So i wounder if this even belongs in netdev? Do we actually want to extend the current text in "A guide to the Kernel Development Process", and maintainer-netdev.rst say something like: Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged, regardless of the level of expertise. and cross reference to the text in section 7.2? Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists