On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 09:08:28AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:55:21 +0100 Simon Horman wrote: > > > > +Netdev discourages patches which perform simple clean-ups, which are not in > > > > +the context of other work. For example addressing ``checkpatch.pl`` > > > > +warnings, or :ref:`local variable ordering<rcs>` issues. This is because it > > > > +is felt that the churn that such changes produce comes at a greater cost > > > > +than the value of such clean-ups. > > > > > > Should we add "conversions to managed APIs"? It's not a recent thing, > > > people do like to post patches doing bulk conversions which bring very > > > little benefit. > > > > Well yes, I agree that is well established, and a common target of patches. > > But isn't that covered by the previous section? > > > > "Using device-managed and cleanup.h constructs > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > "Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all “auto-cleanup” APIs, > > including even devm_ helpers, historically. They are not the preferred > > style of implementation, merely an acceptable one. > > > > ... > > > > https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html#using-device-managed-and-cleanup-h-constructs > > > > We could merge or otherwise rearrange that section with the one proposed by > > this patch. But I didn't feel it was necessary last week. > > Somewhat, we don't push back on correct use of device-managed APIs. > But converting ancient drivers to be device-managed just to save > 2 or 3 LoC is pointless churn. Which in my mind falls squarely > under the new section, the new section is intended for people sending > trivial patches. Thanks, I can try and work with that. Do you want to call out older drivers too? I was intentionally skipping that for now. But I do agree it should be mentioned at some point. > > > On the opposite side we could mention that spelling fixes are okay. > > > Not sure if that would muddy the waters too much.. > > > > I think we can and should. Perhaps another section simply stating > > that spelling (and grammar?) fixes are welcome. > > Hm, dunno, for quotability I'd have a weak preference for a single > section describing what is and isn't acceptable as a standalone cleanup. Sure.
