[PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

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.

Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index c9edf9e7362d..da9980ad0c57 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -355,6 +355,8 @@ just do it. As a result, a sequence of smaller series gets merged quicker and
 with better review coverage. Re-posting large series also increases the mailing
 list traffic.
 
+.. _rcs:
+
 Local variable ordering ("reverse xmas tree", "RCS")
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
@@ -391,6 +393,15 @@ APIs and helpers, especially scoped iterators. However, direct use of
 ``__free()`` within networking core and drivers is discouraged.
 Similar guidance applies to declaring variables mid-function.
 
+Clean-Up Patches
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+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.
+
 Resending after review
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~