[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Merging of completely unreviewed drivers
    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.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-21 23:35    [W:0.055 / U:0.948 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site