On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:13:12 +0100 Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:57 PM Zhi Wang <zhiw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It would be also helpful to make the process explicit. E.g. sharing your > > command lines used to checking the patches. So folks can align with the > > expected outcome, e.g. command line parameters. > > These two guidelines (and generally the few others above) are intended > to apply to all Rust code in the kernel (i.e. not just `rust/`) -- > their command lines are mentioned in `Documentation/rust/`. We could > add a note to make that clearer if that helps. So I would suggest > avoiding repetition here by referencing those. > > We also mention it in our "Subsystem Profile document" at > https://rust-for-linux.com/contributing#submit-checklist-addendum. I think we can refer the links so that we don't need to explain the process in detail. I would prefer to have the exact command lines that maintainer are using in the doce. E.g. I was experiencing that folks using different params with checkpatch.pl, the outcome, .e.g. warnings are different. different spell-checks backend gives different errors. It could be nice that we put the command lines explicitly so that folks would save some efforts on re-spin. It also saves maintainer's efforts. Z. > > > > +The availability of proper documentation is essential in terms of scalability, > > > +accessability for new contributors and maintainability of a project in general, > > Typo: accessibility? > > Cheers, > Miguel >
