[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:0.144 / U:1.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site