On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 10:20 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In particular, there were some patches NAK'd with arguments that may > apply here (e.g. extra process spawns). Understood. My guess is nobody will care about the process spawn in scripts/generate_rust_analyzer.py. Someone might care about the one in rust/Makefile, but there are already 4 others. By the way, I notice those are using $(shell ...) - should I be using that form as well? > Moreover, how will it get tested going forward? (e.g. currently I > can't, but I could look into setting something up if the kernel wants > to support this). If it breaks, is it considered a bug? etc. I guess that's not for me to say. It would be great to have basic automation. > > Thanks Miguel! As this is my first patch, please let me know if further action > > is required. > > You're welcome! Yes, a new version would be needed with the proper > tags/authorship, but first we should probably wait to hear what Kbuild > (or the kernel) thinks. > > Cheers, > Miguel > Please read the section of the documentation I linked, it contains an > example on how this should be done, i.e. the Co-developed-by tag > cannot be on its own: My apologies for the oversight.
