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: <20191211111628.2955-1-max.hirsch@gmail.com> <20191211162654.GD6622@ziepe.ca>
 <20191212084907.GU67461@unreal> <e5123cbb-9871-d9c3-62e9-5b3172d1adf8@amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <e5123cbb-9871-d9c3-62e9-5b3172d1adf8@amazon.com>
From:   Max Hirsch <max.hirsch@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:28:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CADgTo8_mD6Z7WuA7wdEwh+7AR8YOy8nfJeaa2RbEAeftLGod7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/cma: Fix checkpatch error
To:     Gal Pressman <galpress@amazon.com>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>,
        Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Danit Goldberg <danitg@mellanox.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Dag Moxnes <dag.moxnes@oracle.com>,
        Myungho Jung <mhjungk@gmail.com>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I am happy to make a larger/functional change. From what I read,
desired patch scope is proportional to linux community involvement but
if that not how you guys do the infiniband driver that fine. Whats a
feature you guys want but no one is working on yet, or rather where is
such a list kept?

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:10 AM Gal Pressman <galpress@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2019 10:49, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:26:54PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:16:26AM +0000, Max Hirsch wrote:
> >>> When running checkpatch on cma.c the following error was found:
> >>
> >> I think checkpatch will complain about your patch, did you run it?
> >
> > Jason, Doug
> >
> > I would like to ask to refrain from accepting checkpatch.pl patches
> > which are not part of other large submission. Such standalone cleanups
> > do more harm than actual benefit from them for old and more or less
> > stable code (e.g. RDMA-CM).
>
> Sounds like a great approach to prevent new developers from contributing code.
> You have to start somewhere and checkpatch patches are a good entry point for
> such developers, discouraging them will only hurt us in the long term.
>
> Linus had an interesting post on the subject:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/12/20/255