netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches

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: <01c97823-d560-4f89-b757-752e18940f31@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:42:14 +0200
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <workflows@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches

On 10/9/24 11:12, Simon Horman wrote:
> The purpose of this section is to document what is the current practice
> regarding clean-up patches which address checkpatch warnings and similar
> problems. I feel there is a value in having this documented so others
> can easily refer to it.
> 
> Clearly this topic is subjective. And to some extent the current
> practice discourages a wider range of patches than is described here.
> But I feel it is best to start somewhere, with the most well established
> part of the current practice.
> 
> --
> I did think this was already documented. And perhaps it is.
> But I was unable to find it after a quick search.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>

Looks like you wanted to say "please don't submit autogenerated clenups"

> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Drop RFC designation
> - Correct capitalisation of heading
> - Add that:
>    + devm_ conversions are also discouraged, outside the context of other work

devm_ is generally discouraged in netdev, so much that I will welcome
the opposite cleanup :)

Your write-up on this is correct, no objections.

Perhaps we could say more about the status of the code that is fixed -
Maintained/Odd fixes/Orphaned - I would don't touch anything below
"Maintained" for good reason

>    + Spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged
> - Reformat text accordingly
> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241004-doc-mc-clean-v1-1-20c28dcb0d52@kernel.org
> ---
>   Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index c9edf9e7362d..1ae71e31591c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ just do it. As a result, a sequence of smaller series gets merged quicker and
>   with better review coverage. Re-posting large series also increases the mailing
>   list traffic.
>   
> +.. _rcs:
> +
>   Local variable ordering ("reverse xmas tree", "RCS")
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   
> @@ -391,6 +393,21 @@ APIs and helpers, especially scoped iterators. However, direct use of
>   ``__free()`` within networking core and drivers is discouraged.
>   Similar guidance applies to declaring variables mid-function.
>   
> +Clean-up patches
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Netdev discourages patches which perform simple clean-ups, which are not in
> +the context of other work. For example:
> +
> +* Addressing ``checkpatch.pl`` warnings
> +* Addressing :ref:`Local variable ordering<rcs>` issues
> +* Conversions to device-managed APIs (``devm_`` helpers)
> +
> +This is because it is felt that the churn that such changes produce comes
> +at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups.
> +
> +Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged.
> +
>   Resending after review
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~