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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231546450.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1911231546450.14532@viisi.sifive.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:01:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hBNfabaZmKs0XF+UT9Py8zJqpNdu5KsToqp305NASKNA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 3:50 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> 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) ?

Oh, sorry, I just reacted to Jon's comments. I took a look, and I
think the content would just need to be organized into the proposed
sections. The rules about what level of ratification a specification
needs to receive before a patch will be received sounds like an
extension to the Submit Checklist to me. So I'd say just format your
first paragraph into the Overview section and the other 2 into Submit
Checklist and call it good.