lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Maintainer Entry Profile
    On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:49 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 01:09:37AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
    > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:11:29 -0600
    > > Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On 9/11/19 12:43 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > I kind of hate all this extra documentation because now everyone thinks
    > > > > they can invent new hoops to jump through.
    > > >
    > > > FWIW, I completely agree with Dan (Carpenter) here. I absolutely
    > > > dislike having these kinds of files, and with subsystems imposing weird
    > > > restrictions on style (like the quoted example, yuck).
    > > >
    > > > Additionally, it would seem saner to standardize rules around when
    > > > code is expected to hit the maintainers hands for kernel releases. Both
    > > > yours and Martins deals with that, there really shouldn't be the need
    > > > to have this specified in detail per sub-system.
    > >
    > > This sort of objection came up at the maintainers summit yesterday; the
    > > consensus was that, while we might not like subsystem-specific rules, they
    > > do currently exist and we're just documenting reality. To paraphrase
    > > Phillip K. Dick, reality is that which, when you refuse to document it,
    > > doesn't go away.
    >
    > There aren't that many subsystem rules. The big exception is
    > networking, with the comment style and reverse Chrismas tree
    > declarations. Also you have to label which git tree the patch applies
    > to like [net] or [net-next].
    >
    > It used to be that infiniband used "sizeof foo" instead of sizeof(foo)
    > but now there is a new maintainer.
    >
    > There is one subsystem which where the maintainer will capitalize your
    > patch prefix and complain. There are others where they will silently
    > change it to lower case. (Maybe that has changed in recent years).
    >
    > There is one subsystem where the maintainer is super strict rules that
    > you can't use "I" or "we" in the commit message. So you can't say "I
    > noticed a bug while reviewing", you have to say "The code has a bug".
    >
    > Some maintainers have rules about what you can put in the declaration
    > block. No kmalloc() in the declarations is a common rule.
    > "struct foo *p = kmalloc();".
    >
    > Some people (I do) have strict rules for error handling, but most won't
    > complain unless the error handling has bugs.
    >
    > The bpf people want you to put [bpf] or [bpf-next] in the subject.
    > Everyone just guesses, and uneducated guesses are worse than leaving it
    > blank, but that's just my opinion.
    >
    > > So I'm expecting to take this kind of stuff into Documentation/. My own
    > > personal hope is that it can maybe serve to shame some of these "local
    > > quirks" out of existence. The evidence from this brief discussion suggests
    > > that this might indeed happen.
    >
    > I don't think it's shaming, I think it's validating. Everyone just
    > insists that since it's written in the Book of Rules then it's our fault
    > for not reading it. It's like those EULA things where there is more
    > text than anyone can physically read in a life time.
    >
    > And the documentation doesn't help. For example, I knew people's rules
    > about capitalizing the subject but I'd just forget. I say that if you
    > can't be bothered to add it to checkpatch then it means you don't really
    > care that strongly.

    True, can someone with better perl skills than me take a shot at a
    rule for checkpatch to catch the capitalization preference based on
    the subsystem being touched, or otherwise agree that if a maintainer
    has a changelog capitalization preference they just silently fix it up
    at application time and not waste time pointing out something so
    trivial? For example, I notice Linus likes "-" instead of "*" for
    bullet lists in changelogs he just fixes it up silently if I forget.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-09-13 14:19    [W:3.700 / U:0.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site