From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753521AbbDGLTD (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:19:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]:35687 "EHLO mail-wi0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752381AbbDGLTA (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:19:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 13:18:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Joe Perches , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: about the flood of trivial patches and the Code of Conduct (was: Re: [PATCH 19/25] sched: Use bool function return values of true/false not 1/0) Message-ID: <20150407111855.GD14136@gmail.com> References: <93bd3fb8db14c75508f7169840824539a3f89606.1427759010.git.joe@perches.com> <20150331085320.GR27490@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150331090349.GA16604@gmail.com> <1427820400.10376.23.camel@perches.com> <20150407091246.GA9673@gmail.com> <20150407110049.GA11218@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150407110049.GA11218@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of > > trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed. > > I totally agree, it's not "against" the code of conflict that I > helped write. > > Joe, you know better than to send trivial stuff to maintainers who > don't want it. Send it through the trivial maintainer for > subsystems that have expressed annoyance at this, it's not the first > time this has happened. I argue that they should not be sent _at all_ in such cases, not even via the trivial tree: firstly because typically I'll pick up the bits from the trivial tree as well, and secondly because most of the arguments I listed against bulk trivial commits (weaker bisectability, taking up reviewer bandwidth, taking up Git space, etc.) still stand. Frankly IMHO such a */25 series could be a net negative contribution when coming from a kernel contributor who has written 2000+ trivial patches already... > Some maintainers, like me, are fine with your types of patches, I'd > stick to those subsystems if you like doing this type of work. So sending trivial patches for things like totally unreadable code in say drivers/staging/ is probably OK, as they materially transform the code and make it more maintainable. For the rest it can be more harmful than beneficial, for the reasons I outlined. Thanks, Ingo