From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:41:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43df625f-bd32-4dd9-a960-6d0f5c0304c7@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240226104653.54877-1-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Hi Lukas,
I'll review the file changes separately. This is just replying
to the patch description comments.
On 2/26/24 02:46, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> While going through the submit checklist, the list order seemed rather
> random, probably just by historical coincidences of always adding yet the
> next point someone thought of at the end of the list.
Probably.
> Structure and order them by the category of such activity,
> reviewing, documenting, checking with tools, building and testing.
>
> As the diff of the reordering is large:
> Review code now includes previous points 1, 5 and 22.
> Review Kconfig includes previous 6, 7 and 8.
> Documenting includes previous 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 23.
> Checking with tools includes previous 5, 9 and 10.
> Building includes previous 2, 3, 20 and 24.
> Testing includes previous 12, 13, 14, 19 and 21.
>
...
>
> The recommendation to test with the -mm patchset (previous 21, now
> testing, point 5) was updated to the current state of affairs to test with
> a recent tag of linux-next.
ack.
> Note that the previous first point still remains the first list even after
> reordering. Based on some vague memory, the first point was important to
> Randy to stay the first one in any reordering.
Yes, I have said that. Stephen Rothwell wanted it to be first in the list.
> While at it, the reference to CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG was replaced by
> CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB.
I don't understand this comment. DEBUG_SLAB is gone.
I think those 2 symbols might be reversed in your comments. ?
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
> ---
> So far, no point disappeared and nothing new was added.
>
That's a good start IMO.
> Points/Ideas for further improvements (based on my knowledge and judgement):
>
> - The Review Kconfig changes makes sense, but I am not sure if they are
> so central during review. If we keep it, let us see if there are other
> parts for review that are also important similar to Kconfig changes.
>
> - Concerning checking with tools, checkpatch probably still makes sense;
> it pointed out in several places. If sparse and checkstack are really
> the next two tools to point out, I am not so sure about.
I doubt that ckeckstack is important since gcc & clang warn us about
stack usage.
> sparse has a lot of false positives nowadays, and many things are not
> fixed just because sparse complains about it.
> And I have never used make checkstack and have not found much
> documentation about it.
> So, maybe other tools deserve to be mentioned here instead?
>
> I am happy to get feedback---I will work through submitting-patches next
> and do some clean-up there. While doing that, I might learn what really
> should go into a better future 'submit-checklist' documentation.
>
> Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 157 +++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
--
#Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-27 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-26 10:46 [PATCH] docs: submit-checklist: structure by category Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-26 12:48 ` Jani Nikula
2024-02-27 7:28 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-27 0:41 ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2024-02-27 8:04 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-27 8:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-02-27 11:03 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2024-02-27 11:24 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-02-28 21:57 ` Jonathan Corbet
2024-02-28 23:03 ` Randy Dunlap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43df625f-bd32-4dd9-a960-6d0f5c0304c7@infradead.org \
--to=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).