On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:44:39 -0800 (PST) Paul Walmsley > > <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Formalize, in kernel documentation, the patch acceptance policy for > > > arch/riscv. In summary, it states that as maintainers, we plan to only > > > accept patches for new modules or extensions that have been frozen or > > > ratified by the RISC-V Foundation. > > > > > > We've been following these guidelines for the past few months. In the > > > meantime, we've received quite a bit of feedback that it would be > > > helpful to have these guidelines formally documented. > > > > If at all possible, I would really love to have this be part of the > > maintainer profile documentation: > > > > https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > ...if we could only (hint...CC'd...) get Dan to resubmit it with the > > needed tweaks so it could be merged... > > It looks like the main thing that would be needed would be to add the P: > entry with the path to our patch-acceptance.rst file into the MAINTAINERS > file, after Dan's patches are merged. > > Of course, we could also add more information about sparse cleanliness, > checkpatch warnings, etc., but we mostly try to follow the common kernel > guidelines there. Those could likely be automated to highlight warnings that a given subsystem treats as errors, but wherever possible my expectation is that the policy should be specified globally. > > Is that summary accurate, or did I miss some additional steps? > I'll go fixup and get the into patch submitted today then we can go from there.
