Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765409AbYBUWdd (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:33:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757735AbYBUWdS (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:33:18 -0500 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.185]:53881 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756507AbYBUWdQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:33:16 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:from; b=LH5Jhsu2KbLwwq6GQZF8axip6DepUVGyAq0yYQTVbVg2+Lk1sSvOmUOvCDcmuKrpGZydLRKs8Cp/z9KstbTUWXb1HvrP96tnjrKSndz5SzIZZnB7C/5RAggh8rIKGjQxaJ+DTapI5EgNMxM8lyXxRij5/YvobTovD6CRRQnDEto= Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:33:03 +0300 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Adrian Bunk , 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 Message-ID: <20080221223303.GD1846@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> References: <5E701717F2B2ED4EA60F87C8AA57B7CC0794FFF1@venom2> <5E701717F2B2ED4EA60F87C8AA57B7CC0794FFFF@venom2> <20080221154951.GA28328@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080221210124.GD28328@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Alexey Dobriyan Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1884 Lines: 39 On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:14:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Agrh! What stopped you?! > 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. Speaking of driver, could authors please comment all those barrier() calls and remove trailing "return;" at the end of void functions. -- 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/