Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

[Jonathan Corbet]

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This document seems out of date in a number of ways; it could really use a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

Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

[Lukas Bulwahn]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

[Randy Dunlap]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

[Lukas Bulwahn]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: process: Correct numbering

[Randy Dunlap]

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