On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:56:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > The point of this review process is that userspace using the new uAPI > can actually live with the uAPI being provided, and it's hard to know > that without having actually looked into a kernel patch yourself. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> > Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst > index 8e5545dfbf82..298424b98d99 100644 > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst > @@ -85,7 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements: > - The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that > userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the > mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the > - job done. > + job done. The userspace-side reviewer should also provide at least an > + Acked-by on the kernel uAPI patch indicating that they've looked at how the > + kernel side is implementing the new feature being used. Answers a question that just recently came up on merging new kms properties. Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > - The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor > fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing > -- > 2.20.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
