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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v3] docs: maintainer: document expectations of small
 time maintainers
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, corbet@lwn.net
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        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
References: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50164116-9d12-698d-f552-96b52c718749@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:23:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20230719183225.1827100-1-kuba@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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?

-ed