From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BAC2101C1; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 07:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="S7AKuDVV" Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E3C8B7; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40684f53d11so8339605e9.1; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:55:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697097352; x=1697702152; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CI6wAmn/c75sowLMQ9qhx5ldBqSwgNt5iQ5ki2HUkx8=; b=S7AKuDVV3+Oi0eriBOo08mcZxjXgMPi4cD48J8M0oWz/mreEkB6uWsNYyCHEHgMSn1 yHS+5/oD6+H/ZIR2D+EBHZnxRgLXD+xeBukwSelNGyo3271p9xcRJIizgFhjp9fPIKR/ 1i2szNGpZm9a52TDno04Iu1hyJZ+N/VAXlZWPsmuJqrVf0ViRDfAmZ+lLZioY+NolBI5 o1mGx+KrWcWtbueupKmSzOWc5ZMC/gqudI7gMg+uzJghzangEeh5ZP7VhP8oK7C++gK4 dfXyZ9P1kjRBqZxZtRQTR60Hc8RMGXOwBT0/IUr54tAx7PZqbG1yX8hnmVVx8ARB/M3R R+Ng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697097352; x=1697702152; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CI6wAmn/c75sowLMQ9qhx5ldBqSwgNt5iQ5ki2HUkx8=; b=IxFpMXjdQ8t4X987OkUoQRCJFegVOMFlqzda8W07/DaF1MLWiZ1WfotOI/qhc0J8lQ gcR/eEohFqUkuQSQPPhXC/GKsAByQHaVi6ytkl+p4ocJn7J/Ouo+ma4MjQTneVDiiVQQ g3Mm+2rh/KIMdthpMoi2sYlkRr6tZmTFjUB+TcGmsmqK68PBJagVO/mF+PxqrPEeallQ acbH6iFnZm5bCGAJBskI6AiCHJyhDFMiGcd9mRbuiJKnHTpwE9eX1FGO1TvQiXkrJ2rd zU/O0mEGM91gGr1izEM6QIs36YqmCTBh1jbq9GwzoWNaoc2bmzPYOTtXh1E/r41PKzqd z/UA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwRFS00BySyNnQjvetD63Xqlmu5SGPBjRllvxmbf/rDPPOCuMTg 5Zvob3P1TRLOtHoZiPavI8k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE1wCNOCDyBfA+lfQeQMkhdV6wxcRBF67BqLTCCouS/jdC6HIKQhCS2c72h9YUe34XOgJyQAA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:b41:b0:3f7:f2d0:b904 with SMTP id k1-20020a05600c0b4100b003f7f2d0b904mr20453068wmr.8.1697097351420; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([81.168.73.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v2-20020a1cf702000000b00405d9a950a2sm21186220wmh.28.2023.10.12.00.55.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 08:55:50 +0100 From: Martin Habets To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, sd@queasysnail.net, horms@verge.net.au, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, ecree.xilinx@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] docs: try to encourage (netdev?) reviewers Message-ID: <20231012075438.GA154637@gmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jakub Kicinski , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, sd@queasysnail.net, horms@verge.net.au, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, ecree.xilinx@gmail.com References: <20231011024224.161282-1-kuba@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231011024224.161282-1-kuba@kernel.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 07:42:24PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Add a section to netdev maintainer doc encouraging reviewers > to chime in on the mailing list. > > The questions about "when is it okay to share feedback" > keep coming up (most recently at netconf) and the answer > is "pretty much always". > > Extend the section of 7.AdvancedTopics.rst which deals > with reviews a little bit to add stuff we had been recommending > locally. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski Reviewed-by: Martin Habets > -- > v2: > - grammar fixes from Donald > - remove parenthesis around a quote > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231009225637.3785359-1-kuba@kernel.org/ > - spelling (compliment) > - move to common docs: > - ask for more opinions > - use of tags > - compliments > - ask less experienced reviewers to avoid style comments > (using Florian's wording) > > CC: andrew@lunn.ch > CC: jesse.brandeburg@intel.com > CC: sd@queasysnail.net > CC: horms@verge.net.au > CC: przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com > CC: f.fainelli@gmail.com > CC: jiri@resnulli.us > CC: ecree.xilinx@gmail.com > --- > Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > index bf7cbfb4caa5..43291704338e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ pull. The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will > format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be > sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server. > > +.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews: > > Reviewing patches > ----------------- > @@ -167,6 +168,12 @@ comments as questions rather than criticisms. Asking "how does the lock > get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the > locking here is wrong." > > +Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others > +to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges, > +then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in > +agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon. > +The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight. > + > Different developers will review code from different points of view. Some > are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing > white space. Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented > @@ -176,3 +183,14 @@ security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate > documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc. > All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are > welcome and worthwhile. > + > +There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``. > +In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged > +even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this > +submission and it looks good to me." > +Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise > +maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all! > + > +Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused > +on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while, > +particularly for newbies! > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index 09dcf6377c27..7feacc20835e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -441,6 +441,21 @@ in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. > new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under > ``tools/testing/selftests/``. > > +Reviewer guidance > +----------------- > + > +Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged, > +regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and > +helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. > + > +It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level > +of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about > +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. > + > +Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth > +review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial or subjective > +matters like code formatting, tags etc. > + > Testimonials / feedback > ----------------------- > > -- > 2.41.0 >