On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:46PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:15:26 +0100 Conor Dooley wrote: > > ..I noticed that none of these sections address actually testing the > > code they're responsible for on a (semi-)regular basis. Sure, that comes > > as part of reviewing the patches for their code, but changes to other > > subsystems that a driver/feature maintainer probably would not have been > > CCed on may cause problems for the code they maintain. > > If we are adding a doc about best-practice for maintainers, I think we > > should be encouraging people to test regularly. > I think our testing story is too shaky to make that a requirement. > Differently put - I was never able to get good upstream testing running > when I worked for a vendor myself so I wouldn't know how to draw > the lines. I'm not saying it needs to be added as a must level item, some words to the effect of Maintainers should test the drivers/features they are responsible for on a regular basis, independent of patches that modify their area of responsibility. This helps ensure that changes to other parts of the kernel do not introduce regressions in their driver/feature." would suffice IMO. The doc as it is is a useful addition though, so you can add a Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> if you like. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
