Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 20:26:27 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, corbet@lwn.net,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@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
Message-ID: <2023072012-subzero-maturity-b6cd@gregkh>
References: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
 <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:23:56PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > We appear to have a gap in our process docs. We go into detail
> > on how to contribute code to the kernel, and how to be a subsystem
> > maintainer. I can't find any docs directed towards the thousands
> > of small scale maintainers, like folks maintaining a single driver
> > or a single network protocol.
> > 
> > Document our expectations and best practices. I'm hoping this doc
> > will be particularly useful to set expectations with HW vendors.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Thanks for writing this.  One question—
> 
> > +Reviews
> > +-------
> > +
> > +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?

No, you can ignore them if you don't want to take them :)