kernel development process question, patch review

[valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu (valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu)]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:35:33 +1100, "Tobin C. Harding" said:
> If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change
> as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that
> the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or
> is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the
> patch?

If it's something trivial, like changing a variable name to something
better, or clarifying a comment block, just cc: the reviewer on the next
revision of the patch.

If the reviewer suggest a major overhaul ("the goal looks good, but you
should probably use this other API" or similar), and it's something that
will take a bit of time, you should probably send a quick "Yes, I've put
that on my to-do list" note so the reviewer knows you read their note.

And of course, if you're not sure or disagree with the reviewer, that's
the time to start bouncing polite e-mails back and forth until you're on
the same page.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 484 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20170221/fac7d526/attachment.bin