Add a section to netdev maintainer doc encouraging reviewers to chime in on the mailing list. The questions about "when is it okay to share feedback" keep coming up (most recently at netconf) and the answer is "pretty much always". Extend the section of 7.AdvancedTopics.rst which deals with reviews a little bit to add stuff we had been recommending locally. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> -- v2: - grammar fixes from Donald - remove parenthesis around a quote v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231009225637.3785359-1-kuba@xxxxxxxxxx/ - spelling (compliment) - move to common docs: - ask for more opinions - use of tags - compliments - ask less experienced reviewers to avoid style comments (using Florian's wording) CC: andrew@xxxxxxx CC: jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx CC: sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx CC: przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx CC: f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx CC: jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx CC: ecree.xilinx@xxxxxxxxx --- Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 15 +++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst index bf7cbfb4caa5..43291704338e 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ pull. The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server. +.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews: Reviewing patches ----------------- @@ -167,6 +168,12 @@ comments as questions rather than criticisms. Asking "how does the lock get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the locking here is wrong." +Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others +to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges, +then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in +agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon. +The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight. + Different developers will review code from different points of view. Some are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing white space. Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented @@ -176,3 +183,14 @@ security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc. All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are welcome and worthwhile. + +There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``. +In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged +even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this +submission and it looks good to me." +Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise +maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all! + +Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused +on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while, +particularly for newbies! diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst index 09dcf6377c27..7feacc20835e 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst @@ -441,6 +441,21 @@ in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under ``tools/testing/selftests/``. +Reviewer guidance +----------------- + +Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged, +regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and +helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. + +It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level +of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. + +Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth +review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial or subjective +matters like code formatting, tags etc. + Testimonials / feedback ----------------------- -- 2.41.0
