On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> After the Plumbers session last year I wrote this for SCSI based on a
> prior version by Christoph. It's gone a bit stale but I'll update it to
> match your template.
>
Hi Martin,
The Maintainer profile is very helpful. Are you planning to send ano
Hi Bart,
> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> * Do not use custom To: and Cc: for individual patches. We want to see the
>> whole series, even patches that potentially need to go through a different
>> subsystem tree.
>
> Thanks for having written this summary. This is very hel
On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 16:17 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:42:38 -0700
> Joe Perches escreveu:
[]
> > Just fyi: for an x86-64 defconfig with gcc 8.3
> >
> > $ { make clean ; make defconfig ; make -j4 W=1 ; } > make.log 2>&1
> >
> > There are ~300 W=1 for non kernel
Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 11:42:38 -0700
Joe Perches escreveu:
> On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 15:26 +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:12 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 13:01 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > >
> > > > Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the
On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 15:26 +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:12 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 13:01 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >
> > > Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the formatting of kernel-doc
> > > headers is checked only if W=1 is passed t
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:54:46AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:56:30 -0400
> Matthew Wilcox escreveu:
>
> > It's easy enough to move the kernel-doc warnings out from under W=1. I only
> > out them there to avoid overwhelming us with new warnings. If they're
> > mo
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:12 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 13:01 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> > Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the formatting of kernel-doc
> > headers is checked only if W=1 is passed to make.
>
> Actually, but for the fact there are far too many
>
Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:56:30 -0400
Matthew Wilcox escreveu:
> It's easy enough to move the kernel-doc warnings out from under W=1. I only
> out them there to avoid overwhelming us with new warnings. If they're
> mostly fixed now, let's make checking them the default.
Didn't try doing it kernelwi
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 13:01 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the formatting of kernel-doc
> headers is checked only if W=1 is passed to make.
Actually, but for the fact there are far too many
to generally enable that warning right now,
(an x86-64 defconfig
On 9/12/19 8:34 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:31 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>> * The patch must compile without warnings (make C=1 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__")
>>> and does not incur any zeroday test robot complaints.
>>
>> How
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:31 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > * Do not use custom To: and Cc: for individual patches. We want to see the
> > whole series, even patches that potentially need to go through a different
> > subsystem tree.
That's not
On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> * Do not use custom To: and Cc: for individual patches. We want to see the
> whole series, even patches that potentially need to go through a different
> subsystem tree.
Hi Martin,
Thanks for having written this summary. This is very helpful. Fo
On 9/11/19 4:48 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> At last years Plumbers Conference I proposed the Maintainer Entry
> Profile as a document that a maintainer can provide to set contributor
> expectations and provide fodder for a discussion between maintainers
> about the merits of different maintainer poli
13 matches
Mail list logo
