On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:23:56PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers, > > +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies > > +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer. > Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches > sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already > been nacked as worthless churn? I've generally been assuming I can ignore > those, do I need to make sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat > of what's already been said elsewhere? Yeah, it's this sort of stuff that makes me concerned about the "must" wording. I'd say it's obviously reasonable to ignore such things.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
