[PATCH RFC net] docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Date: 2024-10-04 09:50:04
Also in:
linux-doc, workflows
Subsystem:
documentation, documentation process, networking [general], the rest · Maintainers:
Jonathan Corbet, "David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Linus Torvalds
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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~