* Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering [not found] <1608064956-5512-1-git-send-email-milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> @ 2020-12-21 16:52 ` Jonathan Corbet 2020-12-22 16:23 ` Lukas Bulwahn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2020-12-21 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Milan Lakhani Cc: linux-kernel, linux-safety, linux-doc, lukas.bulwahn, sudip.mukherjee, Christoph Hellwig On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000 Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote: > Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped. > > Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF") > Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> > --- > Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > index 1879f88..230ee42 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches. > 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and > ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.`` > > -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. > +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. > > -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` > +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` [...] I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author. I'm not fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case. This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a rather more thorough updating than this. Thanks, jon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering 2020-12-21 16:52 ` [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering Jonathan Corbet @ 2020-12-22 16:23 ` Lukas Bulwahn 2020-12-22 16:36 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Lukas Bulwahn @ 2020-12-22 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Milan Lakhani, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-safety, open list:DOCUMENTATION, Sudip Mukherjee, Christoph Hellwig On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000 > Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote: > > > Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped. > > > > Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF") > > Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> > > --- > > Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > > index 1879f88..230ee42 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > > @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches. > > 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and > > ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.`` > > > > -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. > > +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. > > > > -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` > > +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` > [...] > > I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a > patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author. I'm not > fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case. > > This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a > rather more thorough updating than this. > Jon, I completely agree on your out-of-date comment. That is why we pointed Milan to that checklist to start with some small basic changes and continue with increasingly more challenging and complex updates. Milan, next update for you to consider: what does "make headers_check" do nowadays? (spoiler alert: it does nothing) Adjust the documentation for that. Then, a more general improvement: think about structuring the checklist to follow the structure of the other submission guidelines. So, reorder the current checklist and check if the step is mentioned in submitting-patches and where and make the checklist much more aligned to submitting-patches. Lukas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering 2020-12-22 16:23 ` Lukas Bulwahn @ 2020-12-22 16:36 ` Randy Dunlap 2020-12-22 17:11 ` Lukas Bulwahn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-22 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lukas Bulwahn, Jonathan Corbet Cc: Milan Lakhani, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-safety, open list:DOCUMENTATION, Sudip Mukherjee, Christoph Hellwig On 12/22/20 8:23 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000 >> Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped. >>> >>> Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF") >>> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> >>> --- >>> Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------ >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst >>> index 1879f88..230ee42 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst >>> @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches. >>> 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and >>> ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.`` >>> >>> -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. >>> +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. >>> >>> -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` >>> +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` >> [...] >> >> I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a >> patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author. I'm not >> fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case. >> >> This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a >> rather more thorough updating than this. >> > > Jon, I completely agree on your out-of-date comment. That is why we > pointed Milan to that checklist to start with some small basic changes > and continue with increasingly more challenging and complex updates. > > Milan, next update for you to consider: what does "make headers_check" > do nowadays? (spoiler alert: it does nothing) Adjust the documentation > for that. > > Then, a more general improvement: think about structuring the > checklist to follow the structure of the other submission guidelines. > So, reorder the current checklist and check if the step is mentioned > in submitting-patches and where and make the checklist much more > aligned to submitting-patches. Please do not move item #1. It is #1 for a reason. -- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering 2020-12-22 16:36 ` Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-22 17:11 ` Lukas Bulwahn 2020-12-22 17:15 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Lukas Bulwahn @ 2020-12-22 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy Dunlap, Milan Lakhani Cc: Jonathan Corbet, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-safety, open list:DOCUMENTATION, Sudip Mukherjee, Christoph Hellwig On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:36 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: > > On 12/22/20 8:23 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000 > >> Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped. > >>> > >>> Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF") > >>> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > >>> index 1879f88..230ee42 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > >>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst > >>> @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches. > >>> 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and > >>> ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.`` > >>> > >>> -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. > >>> +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. > >>> > >>> -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` > >>> +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` > >> [...] > >> > >> I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a > >> patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author. I'm not > >> fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case. > >> > >> This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a > >> rather more thorough updating than this. > >> > > > > Jon, I completely agree on your out-of-date comment. That is why we > > pointed Milan to that checklist to start with some small basic changes > > and continue with increasingly more challenging and complex updates. > > > > Milan, next update for you to consider: what does "make headers_check" > > do nowadays? (spoiler alert: it does nothing) Adjust the documentation > > for that. > > > > Then, a more general improvement: think about structuring the > > checklist to follow the structure of the other submission guidelines. > > So, reorder the current checklist and check if the step is mentioned > > in submitting-patches and where and make the checklist much more > > aligned to submitting-patches. > > Please do not move item #1. It is #1 for a reason. > Randy, thanks for your hint. We will consider that. I never considered this list ordered by priority but maybe somebody did really consider it with those priorities. To me, it seemed rather randomly sorted (with some duplicates) or somehow sorted by the various topics a patch might touch (e.g., some rules on Kconfig, then some rules for device drivers, then some on documenting APIs, then some on testing options). Interestingly, I could not find any mention of checklist item #1 in development-process.rst and further linked pages, despite it being very explicit on various other points. Just for the record on my investigation, it is also not mentioned in submitting-patches, which I did not expect, though, because that guide touches more on the specific stage of preparing a submission than on the creation of a code change. So, if item #1 is so important to the development process, it might deserve to be mentioned elsewhere with some explanation as well. Side remark: I am also wondering if a clang-tidy check could actually check that property of proper includes with a quick rule; that would be a nice showcase for clang-tidy if that can be implemented quickly. Milan, you see there is quite some potential work here. Milan, maybe you can find some good way of structuring the checklist and make sure that #1 is still clear to be most important. I am happy to assist you, Milan, on improving this checklist. Lukas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering 2020-12-22 17:11 ` Lukas Bulwahn @ 2020-12-22 17:15 ` Randy Dunlap 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy Dunlap @ 2020-12-22 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lukas Bulwahn, Milan Lakhani Cc: Jonathan Corbet, Linux Kernel Mailing List, linux-safety, open list:DOCUMENTATION, Sudip Mukherjee, Christoph Hellwig On 12/22/20 9:11 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:36 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> On 12/22/20 8:23 AM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 20:42:36 +0000 >>>> Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Renumber the steps in submit-checklist.rst as some numbers were skipped. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 72deb455b5ec ("block: remove CONFIG_LBDAF") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------ >>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst >>>>> index 1879f88..230ee42 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst >>>>> @@ -75,44 +75,44 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches. >>>>> 13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP`` and >>>>> ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.`` >>>>> >>>>> -16) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. >>>>> +14) All codepaths have been exercised with all lockdep features enabled. >>>>> >>>>> -17) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` >>>>> +15) All new ``/proc`` entries are documented under ``Documentation/`` >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> I've applied this, but, if you're going to stick a "Fixes" tag onto a >>>> patch, it's probably only polite to copy the original author. I'm not >>>> fully convinced that the tag is warranted in this case. >>>> >>>> This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a >>>> rather more thorough updating than this. >>>> >>> >>> Jon, I completely agree on your out-of-date comment. That is why we >>> pointed Milan to that checklist to start with some small basic changes >>> and continue with increasingly more challenging and complex updates. >>> >>> Milan, next update for you to consider: what does "make headers_check" >>> do nowadays? (spoiler alert: it does nothing) Adjust the documentation >>> for that. >>> >>> Then, a more general improvement: think about structuring the >>> checklist to follow the structure of the other submission guidelines. >>> So, reorder the current checklist and check if the step is mentioned >>> in submitting-patches and where and make the checklist much more >>> aligned to submitting-patches. >> >> Please do not move item #1. It is #1 for a reason. >> > > Randy, thanks for your hint. > > We will consider that. I never considered this list ordered by > priority but maybe somebody did really consider it with those > priorities. To me, it seemed rather randomly sorted (with some > duplicates) or somehow sorted by the various topics a patch might > touch (e.g., some rules on Kconfig, then some rules for device > drivers, then some on documenting APIs, then some on testing options). Probably only rule #1 is sorted. :) > Interestingly, I could not find any mention of checklist item #1 in > development-process.rst and further linked pages, despite it being > very explicit on various other points. > > Just for the record on my investigation, it is also not mentioned in > submitting-patches, which I did not expect, though, because that guide > touches more on the specific stage of preparing a submission than on > the creation of a code change. > > So, if item #1 is so important to the development process, it might > deserve to be mentioned elsewhere with some explanation as well. > > Side remark: I am also wondering if a clang-tidy check could actually > check that property of proper includes with a quick rule; that would > be a nice showcase for clang-tidy if that can be implemented quickly. That would be great. > Milan, you see there is quite some potential work here. > > Milan, maybe you can find some good way of structuring the checklist > and make sure that #1 is still clear to be most important. > > I am happy to assist you, Milan, on improving this checklist. thanks. -- ~Randy ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-22 17:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1608064956-5512-1-git-send-email-milan.lakhani@codethink.co.uk>
2020-12-21 16:52 ` [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering Jonathan Corbet
2020-12-22 16:23 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-12-22 16:36 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-12-22 17:11 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-12-22 17:15 ` Randy Dunlap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).