From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [96.44.175.130]) (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 B2B052F83 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DC6128014C for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1619032470; bh=wdVrzSjTf9KJOd+GHHdcZb7lKEEl45895MFlxtf4GqY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=o6bAvyBQvT5Dlk8bAmEL29JwqGKheVPFjXJaodHAwNvL8oU9GwpDSdGalACw70d8A OmpZGdFuGh2FU0pkicrzROgEB1xjOOqrTfMujXOGpur/nv9bA0zPGd+ihgqZp5P2+f V4z58r3iGPsoi+U0HNk4mSpq3tjSd3EZQZvoxyCk= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VcBRAFkAZh_f for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jarvis.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:600:8280:66d1::527]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2354C1280151 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1619032470; bh=wdVrzSjTf9KJOd+GHHdcZb7lKEEl45895MFlxtf4GqY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=o6bAvyBQvT5Dlk8bAmEL29JwqGKheVPFjXJaodHAwNvL8oU9GwpDSdGalACw70d8A OmpZGdFuGh2FU0pkicrzROgEB1xjOOqrTfMujXOGpur/nv9bA0zPGd+ihgqZp5P2+f V4z58r3iGPsoi+U0HNk4mSpq3tjSd3EZQZvoxyCk= Message-ID: <868f996b6dd20226c35e200a4b9611f2b6e8b559.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches From: James Bottomley To: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:14:29 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2021-04-21 at 11:35 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > I've long been on record as not really being a fan of trivial patches > because they can cause merge issues with current patches and > introduce bugs, particularly in older drivers, that don't get > detected for a long while. However, the recent events with the > University of Minnesota: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org/ > > Have elevated the risk factor around trivial patches claiming to fix > bugs to the point where it looks like there's no such thing as a > truly trivial patch and they all need reviewing. > > Our policy in SCSI for a long time has been no trivial patches > accepted to maintained drivers, Sorry, Viro caught this: that should be "no trivial patches accepted to *un*maintained driver ..." James > 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? > > James > > >