Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We might get new developers, but the cost may be high. In the staging > tree, things are worse. The tools can be applied in a blind fashion, > but the results can be really stupid. GregKH has told a few would-be > contributors to "go away" after a few patches that would not build. > > As most of these patches are based on "problems" found by application > of various standard tools, they will likely be resubmitted over and > over until the code is "fixed". Whether the patches are useful may not > be the main question. > > My real complaint with these patches is that very few are more than > compile tested. For example, there are 3 patches for memory leaks in > b43. One (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7998941) was rejected > because it missed some such leaks, but there was not a formal NACK. > The patch was fixed and resubmitted > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8014311/), but not yet tested. The > author then resent it (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8049041/) > and was chastised for resending as it still had not been tested. Of > course, the first two of these can be dropped. Unfortunately, there > are very few devs who have the necessary hardware to test. > > Most of the current set do not account for the directory restructuring > and will not apply.Those can be rejected with the appropriate message > asking that they be rebased. That should not require too much of your > time. That will at last clean out the current backlog. Actually 'git am -3' handles the directory restructuring just fine, so that's not a problem. And I can also manage the current backlog, it just takes some time to clear it up. I'm just worried that these cleanup patches become even a bigger problem in the future. > Is it possible for us to require the patch author to supply the level > of testing when that is not obvious? This information should be in the > comments location after the first ---. I suspect I know the answer for > non-maintainers, but the formal requirement might be helpful. I think that's a good idea. If it's only compile tested that should be properly documented in the commit log so that people are aware of it. > I also promise to be more diligent in reviewing the patches that are > directed at the drivers that I maintain. Thanks, I appreciate that. -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
