Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Add a section to netdev maintainer doc encouraging reviewers > to chime in on the mailing list. > > The questions about "when is it okay to share feedback" > keep coming up (most recently at netconf) and the answer > is "pretty much always". > > Extend the section of 7.AdvancedTopics.rst which deals > with reviews a little bit to add stuff we had been recommending > locally. I for one really appreciate this additional guidance and where better to start than by reviewing the guidance for new reviewers :-) Looks good other than some minor grammar nits below. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > -- > RFC -> v1: > - spelling (compliment) > - move to common docs: > - ask for more opinions > - use of tags > - compliments > - ask less experienced reviewers to avoid style comments > (using Florian's wording) > > CC: andrew@xxxxxxx > CC: jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx > CC: sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx > CC: f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx > CC: jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx > CC: ecree.xilinx@xxxxxxxxx > --- > Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > index bf7cbfb4caa5..415749feed17 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ pull. The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will > format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be > sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server. > > +.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews: > > Reviewing patches > ----------------- > @@ -167,6 +168,12 @@ comments as questions rather than criticisms. Asking "how does the lock > get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the > locking here is wrong." > > +Another technique useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others Another technique that is useful ... > +to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges, > +calling for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in then call for > +agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon. > +Opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight. The opinion > + > Different developers will review code from different points of view. Some > are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing > white space. Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented > @@ -176,3 +183,14 @@ security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate > documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc. > All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are > welcome and worthwhile. > + > +There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``. > +In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged > +even when a tag is provided (e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this > +submission and it looks good to me.") > +Some form of a review message / reply is obviously necessary otherwise Minor nit but I think "or" would be preferable to "/" in prose like this. > +maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all! > + > +Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused > +on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while, > +particularly for newbies! > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index 09dcf6377c27..a0cb00e7f579 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -441,6 +441,21 @@ in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. > new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under > ``tools/testing/selftests/``. > > +Reviewer guidance > +----------------- > + > +Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged, > +regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and > +helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. > + > +It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level > +of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about > +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. > + > +Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth > +review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial / subject Do you mean subjective matters? > +matters like code formatting, tags etc. > + > Testimonials / feedback > -----------------------
