Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines

From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
Cc: krste@berkeley.edu, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:35:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hmagCVLCTYmmv0U8-YD5BEoQPV=wtm5hbp3MxqwZRQUA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231523390.14532@viisi.sifive.com>

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:44:39 -0800 (PST) Paul Walmsley
> > <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Formalize, in kernel documentation, the patch acceptance policy for
> > > arch/riscv.  In summary, it states that as maintainers, we plan to only
> > > accept patches for new modules or extensions that have been frozen or
> > > ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
> > >
> > > We've been following these guidelines for the past few months.  In the
> > > meantime, we've received quite a bit of feedback that it would be
> > > helpful to have these guidelines formally documented.
> >
> > If at all possible, I would really love to have this be part of the
> > maintainer profile documentation:
> >
> >       https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
> >
> > ...if we could only (hint...CC'd...) get Dan to resubmit it with the
> > needed tweaks so it could be merged...
>
> It looks like the main thing that would be needed would be to add the P:
> entry with the path to our patch-acceptance.rst file into the MAINTAINERS
> file, after Dan's patches are merged.
>
> Of course, we could also add more information about sparse cleanliness,
> checkpatch warnings, etc., but we mostly try to follow the common kernel
> guidelines there.

Those could likely be automated to highlight warnings that a given
subsystem treats as errors, but wherever possible my expectation is
that the policy should be specified globally.

>
> Is that summary accurate, or did I miss some additional steps?
>

I'll go fixup and get the into patch submitted today then we can go from there.

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv