From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 09:08:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241007090828.05c3f0da@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241007155521.GI32733@kernel.org>
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:55:21 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > +Netdev discourages patches which perform simple clean-ups, which are not in
> > > +the context of other work. For example addressing ``checkpatch.pl``
> > > +warnings, or :ref:`local variable ordering<rcs>` issues. This is because it
> > > +is felt that the churn that such changes produce comes at a greater cost
> > > +than the value of such clean-ups.
> >
> > Should we add "conversions to managed APIs"? It's not a recent thing,
> > people do like to post patches doing bulk conversions which bring very
> > little benefit.
>
> Well yes, I agree that is well established, and a common target of patches.
> But isn't that covered by the previous section?
>
> "Using device-managed and cleanup.h constructs
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all “auto-cleanup” APIs,
> including even devm_ helpers, historically. They are not the preferred
> style of implementation, merely an acceptable one.
>
> ...
>
> https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html#using-device-managed-and-cleanup-h-constructs
>
> We could merge or otherwise rearrange that section with the one proposed by
> this patch. But I didn't feel it was necessary last week.
Somewhat, we don't push back on correct use of device-managed APIs.
But converting ancient drivers to be device-managed just to save
2 or 3 LoC is pointless churn. Which in my mind falls squarely
under the new section, the new section is intended for people sending
trivial patches.
> > On the opposite side we could mention that spelling fixes are okay.
> > Not sure if that would muddy the waters too much..
>
> I think we can and should. Perhaps another section simply stating
> that spelling (and grammar?) fixes are welcome.
Hm, dunno, for quotability I'd have a weak preference for a single
section describing what is and isn't acceptable as a standalone cleanup.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-07 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-04 9:49 [PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches Simon Horman
2024-10-07 15:24 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-10-07 15:55 ` Simon Horman
2024-10-07 16:08 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2024-10-07 16:15 ` Simon Horman
2024-10-07 16:54 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-10-08 12:30 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241007090828.05c3f0da@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).