From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
corbet@lwn.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux@leemhuis.info, kvalo@kernel.org,
benjamin.poirier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small time maintainers
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:31:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1d136db7-4c39-4b56-86fc-3840b1395b4d@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:23:56PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > +Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers,
> > +no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies
> > +multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer.
> Does this apply even to "checkpatch cleanup patch spam", where other patches
> sprayed from the same source (perhaps against other drivers) have already
> been nacked as worthless churn? I've generally been assuming I can ignore
> those, do I need to make sure to explicitly respond with typically a repeat
> of what's already been said elsewhere?
Yeah, it's this sort of stuff that makes me concerned about the "must"
wording. I'd say it's obviously reasonable to ignore such things.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-20 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-19 18:32 Jakub Kicinski
2023-07-20 15:15 ` Conor Dooley
2023-07-20 21:37 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-07-20 22:23 ` Conor Dooley
2023-07-20 18:23 ` Edward Cree
2023-07-20 18:26 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-07-20 18:31 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2023-07-20 21:42 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-07-21 7:46 ` Martin Habets
2023-07-21 8:38 ` Simon Horman
2023-07-21 19:53 ` Jonathan Corbet
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=1d136db7-4c39-4b56-86fc-3840b1395b4d@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=benjamin.poirier@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=ecree.xilinx@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
--cc=leonro@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@leemhuis.info \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--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