On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 04:56:32PM +0200, Zhi Wang wrote: > 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. Regarding the two, for me they read more like suggestions. The few others are indeed pretty clearly documented in "general-information". Gonna add references instead. > > > > 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. Generally, I'm fine with adding the specific command that should be run before sending patches in a single place for convenience in this document. But maybe it makes sense to consider whether this could go into the generic Rust documentation too? > > 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 > > >
