Hi Deepak, On 11/8/22 09:10, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:29:30PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 06/11/2022 11:52, Deepak R Varma wrote: >>> Greetings to all. >>> My name is Deepak R Varma and I was part of the recent Outreachy internship >>> round. I learned during this program that patches for the media drivers were >>> prohibited to be included in the Outreachy effort due to lack of bandwidth for >>> the maintainers to respond on those. >>> >>> The Outreachy round is now over but I am continuing to work on code improvement >>> and changes. I would like to know if it is okay for me to now identify >>> opportunities in the media drivers and send patch proposal for your kind >>> consideration. I intend to send couple of Coccinelle identified code >>> improvements as patches. >>> >>> Please let me know. >> >> I won't say no but since the media maintainers will need to apply them, >> the problem is the same. > > Yeah. Me either. Those rules are for Outreachy so they don't apply to > anyone else, but at the same time no one is going to Ack your patches > without seeing them and especially for a subsystem they don't maintain. > > I always try to think about if maintainers will want my patches. Like > I sometimes see people returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM but, you know, > unless it reaches user space it's not technically a bug. You can't go > around fixing everyone's bad taste. But everyone likes bug fixes. > > regards, > dan carpenter > I don't mind taking patches for media staging drivers as long as: 1) they are not for atomisp, and 2) they are not for deprecated drivers (drivers/staging/media/deprecated/) Regards, Hans
