From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7547CD690C for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229746AbjJJImL (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:42:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57684 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229887AbjJJImH (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:42:07 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 006AC9F; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5068692b0d9so4557141e87.1; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:42:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696927323; x=1697532123; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:date:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ae0hLvXNfmj5oKuaaZeV8hEDEMUV8fln2sNtm/lezaY=; b=CcQ4kWuN5CVjt2Tq+9/wqmAZI/F/LD2b1b614J/10A00QocXx1OW7XIBh5b2173QWD 14eCOXfuGRscZCAlI1dpbyCsLXQG775s0tHdCWsTOmxa4rkEW7224lQ75rwoPEqI2HaC 8oeVwF2F17vFf+Lt9XhEs8ErJeqmPbsFikqEj4qx0wp0SR49MjN2w8I3nPzBlI1xz5kc ZZv6wbsDyUOQ9L7QGWBkyt4w0G4PnPmb2NLDttH4bMwIVwyci59HbuliUFqaAbjWz+OG BoQQBCtfHJh7xQFec3lv1D8xgfqbDckfxk2ZSC4DsBTlri4Qd4SntAXV/Dlksdf88KfV 91wA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696927323; x=1697532123; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:date:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ae0hLvXNfmj5oKuaaZeV8hEDEMUV8fln2sNtm/lezaY=; b=jcZX+Pk+gcJPYEceeIXZFjgozc9CPeLQ6vdOo4t5zTcl/ZF5t+9CuQkzMqZg5x7t47 ujyPJV7kYtGo/Pm2gulSv/Tmj2A9aN2Mhw+8+EXZgyz1XxR2+RF/E3tsb8Y2pE6pKlUy Bc6li/7TUaeb0D94t0Ul5AYD8jKyguOXfuYwQzsUW80DcJv1Xq7KTVdo3cr36zGCNCr9 jJYnSInqbXqUMVNsfJr/WxiJYvtZNBpAkQ+NDrWHoLNMxAV9oaRG1s7S0Evqwte2pyXB nPqOs3widBtLmD31pLpWiCjRwi+sD0IfJaLUVyOHMrqC8XpHrSRD3eRJ9NKX60vOAxs1 pKxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxi0vguKDE3C1HMYWCAxpnlqIw3b0dbKpGKKb2Zu4Ikwn4UvQHg QBgza1xrX07MwdklSaTmaMeGapQ9WGXwwA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGP9iJh77kM89/iiAZsxIhGPSthdopuP0xLcB9rrdz2C3htcFrLq9rMqVW8tuFHPLGoDZM4Ng== X-Received: by 2002:a19:8c5a:0:b0:504:7f2e:9391 with SMTP id i26-20020a198c5a000000b005047f2e9391mr13817096lfj.34.1696927322756; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imac ([2a02:8010:60a0:0:25e3:a83f:9563:f690]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k22-20020a7bc416000000b00404719b05b5sm13465447wmi.27.2023.10.10.01.42.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:42:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Donald Hunter To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, sd@queasysnail.net, horms@verge.net.au, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, ecree.xilinx@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: try to encourage (netdev?) reviewers In-Reply-To: <20231009225637.3785359-1-kuba@kernel.org> (Jakub Kicinski's message of "Mon, 9 Oct 2023 15:56:36 -0700") Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:41:33 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20231009225637.3785359-1-kuba@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org Jakub Kicinski writes: > Add a section to netdev maintainer doc encouraging reviewers > to chime in on the mailing list. > > The questions about "when is it okay to share feedback" > keep coming up (most recently at netconf) and the answer > is "pretty much always". > > Extend the section of 7.AdvancedTopics.rst which deals > with reviews a little bit to add stuff we had been recommending > locally. I for one really appreciate this additional guidance and where better to start than by reviewing the guidance for new reviewers :-) Looks good other than some minor grammar nits below. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski > -- > RFC -> v1: > - spelling (compliment) > - move to common docs: > - ask for more opinions > - use of tags > - compliments > - ask less experienced reviewers to avoid style comments > (using Florian's wording) > > CC: andrew@lunn.ch > CC: jesse.brandeburg@intel.com > CC: sd@queasysnail.net > CC: horms@verge.net.au > CC: przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com > CC: f.fainelli@gmail.com > CC: jiri@resnulli.us > CC: ecree.xilinx@gmail.com > --- > Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > index bf7cbfb4caa5..415749feed17 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ pull. The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will > format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be > sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server. > > +.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews: > > Reviewing patches > ----------------- > @@ -167,6 +168,12 @@ comments as questions rather than criticisms. Asking "how does the lock > get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the > locking here is wrong." > > +Another technique useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others Another technique that is useful ... > +to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges, > +calling for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in then call for > +agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon. > +Opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight. The opinion > + > Different developers will review code from different points of view. Some > are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing > white space. Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented > @@ -176,3 +183,14 @@ security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate > documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc. > All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are > welcome and worthwhile. > + > +There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``. > +In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged > +even when a tag is provided (e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this > +submission and it looks good to me.") > +Some form of a review message / reply is obviously necessary otherwise Minor nit but I think "or" would be preferable to "/" in prose like this. > +maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all! > + > +Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused > +on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while, > +particularly for newbies! > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index 09dcf6377c27..a0cb00e7f579 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -441,6 +441,21 @@ in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. > new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under > ``tools/testing/selftests/``. > > +Reviewer guidance > +----------------- > + > +Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged, > +regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and > +helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. > + > +It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level > +of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about > +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. > + > +Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth > +review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial / subject Do you mean subjective matters? > +matters like code formatting, tags etc. > + > Testimonials / feedback > -----------------------