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 19:31:11 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, corbet@lwn.net,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@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: <1d136db7-4c39-4b56-86fc-3840b1395b4d@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
 <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jb9kzeyvt9pPL7IP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--jb9kzeyvt9pPL7IP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:23:56PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 19/07/2023 19:32, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

> > +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?

Yeah, it's this sort of stuff that makes me concerned about the "must"
wording.  I'd say it's obviously reasonable to ignore such things.

--jb9kzeyvt9pPL7IP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmS5fW4ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9AIHQf/Q9pz80IaSHLonaCmKZBC/PhYzARUEaUDHduoe5xLcbBScTYkq8I6Z7Xp
MMEdiuI9ueOcSGGJNwSxrsjJMPvYQ59ji4fsJ7hEQULZZ+44f5XBR46jRd0rYX3z
b3fNyivasjTQEo/yNinlzMDQBA5Bzgquft3GCSd7sOn+Ba76YWofKBrAWJ9XfHqs
Hc9JY98Eh/sa03U8rTMF8BuDKpz+XNexp6r5WY9SbVwtHlNOM/vwvb3Lf3EK5TYA
Xau0KMJYF+Z+kIn7vElXvGwxLPa1rbxZfj8yuvEnwxX76U0in2XSXmJ2b8Nyd2I4
wF7oOllE5TwlbmHTw0i5uBWk33Npdw==
=XcvA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jb9kzeyvt9pPL7IP--