On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail > on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem > maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands > of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver > or a single network protocol. > > Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc > will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors. > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- Thanks for writing this. One question— > +Reviews > +------- > + > +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers, > +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies > +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer. Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already been nacked as worthless churn? I've generally been assuming I can ignore those, do I need to make sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat of what's already been said elsewhere? -ed
