From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C7652F83 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:53:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13LIYZku166702; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:53:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=N+HZx2mfjV7JtclKC0uRek2FqYsGF5enJAZTBXlc4wA=; b=H6uzE8aQMY7RFnXwgiBg66DwwEfQZq+IQC8IWMLu24LfIVk1o7/RJPAXwdoj+R6dTQJr gIFSnqgGIwzZMKw2nRmcV1/ksdppmYHk4FBH7/Qqith7IoaM2L97DArmUWZMLKnEV/EJ Rh6hlPkI0j7zcTtcn+rhXnqY+Uu7MrCkKyyVxYT84xoF6Ehw0or3YSoF0Ov2bC9crX2N XqUjA56cksPrWnqGVadApld9GoK2ZfKalxSYvTf4Sqkvwy0I5bX8YRMdPnBFRlJwOZSe c5s9V0bWYTP8IwWgqRmOcTe1XrVig604l+9K+wpyMpEw1m/dbVBq52JdDWxV/IqFVftW Hg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 382pmm6n3g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:53:32 -0400 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13LIaRlL172803; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:53:32 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 382pmm6n36-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:53:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13LIiMAX005455; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:53:30 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37yt2rtdhs-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:53:30 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13LIrSfW66060720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:53:28 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E74A52054; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:53:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc7455500831.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.22.74]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060B952050; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:53:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches To: Alexey Dobriyan , James Bottomley Cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev References: From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: <6ff1fb66-6f1e-340a-b6b2-c717c1fe5d66@de.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 20:53:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: f3dz_P9qYISuJhQhtWgUmVSwMUno1R_l X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: BxHX8ftul4zI-fyrwwVf493l8ttpfCMk X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-21_05:2021-04-21,2021-04-21 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104210128 On 21.04.21 20:51, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:35:36AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> Our policy in SCSI for a long time has been no trivial patches accepted >> to maintained drivers, and I think that would be a good start if >> adopted kernel wide, but I think the next policy should be no trivial >> bug fix without a pointer to the actual bug report or report from a >> trusted static checker. This would likely mean we have to create a >> list of trusted static checkers ... obviously 0day and coverity but >> what else? > > How does the list get expanded if new static checker is not on > the list and its patches won't be applied? I think the answer is common sense. Take James proposal as a guideline but use your common sense as a maintainer to apply patches nevertheless. This would also address my concern.