All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: conor@kernel.org, conor.dooley@microchip.com,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's role
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:50:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230511-equation-decline-56b638ff9440@wendy> (raw)

Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the
weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we
should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork
instance plays in patch acceptance.

Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end.

Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
---
The bit about fixes being applied to riscv/fixes is not actually
correct, it's actually linux-next/pending-fixes. We've not had issues
with the fixes branch being broken in a while, but I switched it over
to pending-fixes due to the KVM breakage. I'll swap back to match the
documentation I'm adding.

I was also not sure if this was the correct doc for this, or whether a
process/maintainer-riscv.rst file was better suited. There's clearly no
rush on this though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CC: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
CC: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
CC: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
---
 Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
index 1d1fb885326b..76ec57626043 100644
--- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
+++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
@@ -16,6 +16,24 @@ tested code over experimental code.  We wish to extend these same
 principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
 inclusion in the kernel.
 
+Patchwork
+---------
+
+RISC-V has a patchwork instance, where the status of patches can be checked:
+
+  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/
+
+If your patch does not appear in the default view, the RISC-V maintainers have
+likely either requested changes, or expect it to be applied to another tree.
+
+Automation runs against this patchwork instance, building/testing patches as
+they arrive. The automation applies patches against the current HEAD of the
+RISC-V `for-next` and `fixes` branches, depending on whether the patch has been
+detected as a fix. The exact commit to which a series has been applied will be
+noted on patchwork.
+Patches for which any of the checks fail are unlikely to be applied and in most
+cases will need to be resubmitted.
+
 Submit Checklist Addendum
 -------------------------
 We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
-- 
2.39.2


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: conor@kernel.org, conor.dooley@microchip.com,
	"Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's role
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:50:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230511-equation-decline-56b638ff9440@wendy> (raw)

Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the
weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we
should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork
instance plays in patch acceptance.

Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end.

Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
---
The bit about fixes being applied to riscv/fixes is not actually
correct, it's actually linux-next/pending-fixes. We've not had issues
with the fixes branch being broken in a while, but I switched it over
to pending-fixes due to the KVM breakage. I'll swap back to match the
documentation I'm adding.

I was also not sure if this was the correct doc for this, or whether a
process/maintainer-riscv.rst file was better suited. There's clearly no
rush on this though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CC: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org>
CC: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
CC: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
---
 Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
index 1d1fb885326b..76ec57626043 100644
--- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
+++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
@@ -16,6 +16,24 @@ tested code over experimental code.  We wish to extend these same
 principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
 inclusion in the kernel.
 
+Patchwork
+---------
+
+RISC-V has a patchwork instance, where the status of patches can be checked:
+
+  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/
+
+If your patch does not appear in the default view, the RISC-V maintainers have
+likely either requested changes, or expect it to be applied to another tree.
+
+Automation runs against this patchwork instance, building/testing patches as
+they arrive. The automation applies patches against the current HEAD of the
+RISC-V `for-next` and `fixes` branches, depending on whether the patch has been
+detected as a fix. The exact commit to which a series has been applied will be
+noted on patchwork.
+Patches for which any of the checks fail are unlikely to be applied and in most
+cases will need to be resubmitted.
+
 Submit Checklist Addendum
 -------------------------
 We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
-- 
2.39.2


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

             reply	other threads:[~2023-05-11 13:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-11 13:50 Conor Dooley [this message]
2023-05-11 13:50 ` [PATCH v1] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's role Conor Dooley

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=20230511-equation-decline-56b638ff9440@wendy \
    --to=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=bjorn@kernel.org \
    --cc=conor@kernel.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.