On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:32 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [Me] > > It is a bigger evil to leave the tree broken than to enforce formal process, > > and it is pretty self-evident. If any of them get annoyed about it we can > > revert the patch, or both. > > Yeah, I definitely understand why you did it, but I don't think it's > something we would encourage in drm-misc. Hm OK I guess, it can be debated but no point in debating it either. > We've discussed it with Sima yesterday, and I think we would even need > the extra check in dim to make sure that a committer shouldn't do that > without dim complaining. (...) > Sima played a bit with it, and it should be doable to get something > fairly reliable if you use get_maintainers.pl to retrieve the git tree > (through scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-email --no-l --scm) and figuring > out if only drm.git, drm-intel.git or drm-misc.git is involved. > > If it isn't, then we should check that there's the ack of one of the > maintainers. So check for any code that is hitting namespaces outside drivers/gpu/* Documentation/gpu/* or include/[uapi/]drm/* that it is ACKed by the respective maintainer for that area of the kernel? > Could you write a patch to do so? Patch dim? Well my bash skills are a bit so-so. But I guess I could learn it. But did you say there is already a prototype? Yours, Linus Walleij
