Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:49:56 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        palmer@dabbelt.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, krste@berkeley.edu,
        waterman@eecs.berkeley.edu,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4hmagCVLCTYmmv0U8-YD5BEoQPV=wtm5hbp3MxqwZRQUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231546450.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911221842200.14532@viisi.sifive.com> <20191123092552.1438bc95@lwn.net> <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231523390.14532@viisi.sifive.com> <CAPcyv4hmagCVLCTYmmv0U8-YD5BEoQPV=wtm5hbp3MxqwZRQUA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019, Dan Williams wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.

I guess I'm still looking for guidance along the lines of my earlier 
question: what (if anything) would we need to change about the current 
patch to have it work with the maintainer profile documentation (beyond 
the "P:" entry in MAINTAINERS) ?


- Paul