Currently, we blindly trust the submitters that they both compiled their code at all, tested it on a relevant device, and have done so in a manner that made sense for a given changeset. If at least two of these three things were always true, the review workflow would be much more exciting. Introduce a new Test: tag to help submitters express the way the patch was tested, making it easier to understand for reviewers and maintainers whether it was tested, and if so, whether that test was sufficient. I originally found something like this on Google's Android kernel repos and loved the concept. Test: make htmldocs and manual examination Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst index 3fcfa029c9b3..c3fda5743ca7 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst @@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author:: Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: +Using informative tags: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it @@ -600,6 +600,22 @@ process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on all stable patch candidates. For more information, please read Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. +A Test: tag confirms that the patch was actually tested by the submitter and +helps reviewers determine whether the testing procedure made sense for a given +changeset. The latter in particular, may bring attention to errors in the +testing procedure and prompt a more in-depth examination of a patch. + +Commonly, ``Test: Smoke test on [device name]`` may be used to signify that: + + (a) The kernel compiled successfully with the default defconfig. + + (b) The device has successfully booted the image from point (a), with + no apparent loss in functionality compared to the state before this + patch was applied. + + (c) The submitter believes in good faith, that such simple test is + enough, given the scope of the patch. + .. _the_canonical_patch_format: The canonical patch format --- base-commit: 0f0fe5040de5e5fd9b040672e37725b046e312f0 change-id: 20231007-topic-test_tag-72bca62617f9 Best regards, -- Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
