Re: RFC: Broadcom fmac wireless driver cleanup

Gmail seems to mark your replies as spam :(

On 17 July 2017 at 11:34, Ian Molton [off-list ref] wrote:

On 17/07/17 05:53, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote:

quoted

I looked at 4 random patches and none got any description. Not to
mention their chaotic subjects. In this state I can't even review it.
If you want to have some change accepted, you've to convince us it's
needed. Work on cleaning your patches and resend them. You also need
to signed off your changes.

This isn't my first rodeo. I know there are only outline descriptions,
and no Sob.

Thats because this is an RFC. You sign off *finished* work.

Sending signed patches, include RFCs is much more convenient. It
allows e.g. other people to pick your work if you won't manage to get
in accepted for some reason.

This is a codebase I'm not 100% familiar with, and I don't know the
maintainers - Im not going to polish patches if they aren't then going
to get accepted upstream.

I'm looking for comments on the actual *code*. Review requires *reading*
it. Review is not just "I read the description and it looked ok at the
time" - Thats clearly how this code got into this state in the first plac=

e.

I don't expect patches to be perfectly polished at RFC phase. I also
never said I'm interested in description only. Don't expect to get
nicely described hack to get accepted for that reason.

Description is supposed to provide a context for the changes. It's
easier to review *code changes* knowing what you are trying to
fix/achieve. It saves a lot of guessing time.

Honestly, the patch robot has given more useful feedback than the humans
on here thus far.

But hey, if thats how patch submission works these days... I'll add some
descriptions. But I'd better not be polishing this stuff for no reason.

Insulting maintainers may not be the best way of getting your stuff
reviewed & accepted.

--=20
Rafa=C5=82