From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 33B0C1D9340; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:55:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728316525; cv=none; b=T31jaBRZF1l2Ln2jTBrIp332RHs9JY9gKmCLnvEucdv/UupY6dQKYC6+OTe01USryohYCsgWiREz/3hQtgdnI79ShL0L+RsHLu2G/IrZROjjZZtffYk+/o2tEesFHt49BD5G/kkm07JACIYdKyAjcbrvm+dVggRpA0717AGC/9o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728316525; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xUgQ12yWyVmh9UezQ+B9+CBgyoHn1hM31OEXrAfgu44=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QnJTZwThZirzQhe91ttF5KHNJp/lbHxJQ8KMWiozOao0eY4mppWUdVm+15tNTYWw5DDa68roVcyaFjjBSGnRH429J0o4VCl+9C6z9uSP3tNLHQHagu/pAQkfiebmn1qCLdZFY1CVdQhQkYlsfAuoqKElhdvUjMaA3G03ebGxFnc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=lKaIcxAa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="lKaIcxAa" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CF13C4CEC6; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:55:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1728316524; bh=xUgQ12yWyVmh9UezQ+B9+CBgyoHn1hM31OEXrAfgu44=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=lKaIcxAa0SNDiuN8sPVPp3hwCzROG0gdKoSKZo7LIq4d7t0JJoQau20VvyblvGWDQ 2i3H/lV/DYdkYT7FquT+4rzQtxu0I5fvCEDiYGjccq+BbTO5ccZmbz2uUOs3PXTfVj +PPqudV5YQSWUV3YFCcBb1dZlBqEHgESIbL0n8sEU9hSVo0kaiJUfp86RxxrK8shji DmercezjSMquFo/OGoFYJVcGA+G4y6m6iWGN4Uq5mFGa4cIifWQ0JlZoUd5I9aDisr RO9j8cEDxWddr3RH29A6DaUy2QFbkHtwao6xhpKSldArh3/TrPuiLvsTt7ZP9e/Gvp 5Bhg0+2dnKxcQ== Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:55:21 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Jonathan Corbet , 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 Message-ID: <20241007155521.GI32733@kernel.org> References: <20241004-doc-mc-clean-v1-1-20c28dcb0d52@kernel.org> <20241007082430.21de3848@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20241007082430.21de3848@kernel.org> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 08:24:30AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:49:53 +0100 Simon Horman wrote: > > The purpose of this section is to document what is the current practice > > regarding clean-up patches which address checkpatch warnings and similar > > problems. I feel there is a value in having this documented so others > > can easily refer to it. > > > > Clearly this topic is subjective. And to some extent the current > > practice discourages a wider range of patches than is described here. > > But I feel it is best to start somewhere, with the most well established > > part of the current practice. > > > > -- > > I did think this was already documented. And perhaps it is. > > But I was unable to find it after a quick search. > > Thanks a lot for documenting it, this is great! > All the suggestions below are optional, happy to merge as is. > > > +Clean-Up Patches > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > nit: other sections use sentence-like capitalization (only capitalizing > the first word), is that incorrect? Or should we ay "Clean-up patches" > here? I think we should be consistent here (I'm intentionally avoiding answering what is correct :) > > > +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` 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. > 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.