Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933203AbYBUVPw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:15:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754489AbYBUVPn (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:15:43 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:59406 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753891AbYBUVPm (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:15:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:14:55 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Adrian Bunk cc: Roland Dreier , Glenn Streiff , Faisal Latif , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: Merging of completely unreviewed drivers In-Reply-To: <20080221210124.GD28328@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: References: <5E701717F2B2ED4EA60F87C8AA57B7CC0794FFF1@venom2> <5E701717F2B2ED4EA60F87C8AA57B7CC0794FFFF@venom2> <20080221154951.GA28328@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080221210124.GD28328@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1618 Lines: 38 On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Is it really intended to merge drivers without _any_ kind of review? I'd really rather have the driver merged, and then *other* people can send patches! The thing is, that's what merging really means - people can work on it sanely together. Before it's merged, it's a lot harder for people to work on it unless they are really serious about that driver, so before merging, the janitorial kind of things seldom happen. So yes, I really do believe that we should merge drivers in particular a lot more aggressively. I'd like to see *testing* feedback, in order to not merge drivers that simply don't work well enough, but anything else? I suspect other feedback is as likely to cause problems as it is to fix things. > This driver even lacks a basic "please fix the > 250 checkpatch errors" [1] > and similar low hanging fruits that could easily be spotted and then > fixed by the submitter within a short amount of time. Quite frankly, I've several times been *this* close (holds up fingers so you can't even see between them) to just remove checkpatch entirely. I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines (where the "fixed" version is usually worse than the original), but it's been true for some other warnings too. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/