Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] MAINTAINERS: Introduce V: entry for tests

2023-12-06 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 18:23 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > On 12/6/23 10:12, David Gow wrote: > > I'm pretty happy with this personally, though I definitely think we > > need the support for tests which aren't just executable scripts (e.g. > > the docs in patch 6). > > > > The

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] MAINTAINERS: Introduce V: entry for tests

2023-12-05 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 20:02 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > Require the entry values to not contain the '@' character, so they could > be distinguished from emails (always) output by get_maintainer.pl. Why is this useful? Why the need to distinguish?

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] get_maintainer: Survive querying missing files

2023-12-05 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 20:02 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > Do not die, but only warn when scripts/get_maintainer.pl is asked to > retrieve information about a missing file. > > This allows scripts/checkpatch.pl to query MAINTAINERS while processing > patches which are removing files. Why is

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/10] docs: submitting-patches: Introduce Tested-with:

2023-12-05 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 11:59 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Nikolai Kondrashov writes: > > > Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. [] > I have to ask whether we *really* need to introduce yet another tag for > this. How are

Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] iov_iter: Fix some checkpatch complaints in kunit tests

2023-11-15 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 15:49 +, David Howells wrote: > Fix some checkpatch complaints in the new iov_iter kunit tests: > > (1) Some lines had eight spaces instead of a tab at the start. > > (2) Checkpatch doesn't like (void*)(unsigned long)0xnULL, so switch to > using

Re: [PATCH 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Introduce V: field for required tests

2023-11-15 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 19:43 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: > Introduce a new 'V:' ("Verify") field to MAINTAINERS. The field accepts > a name of a test suite which is required to be executed for each > contribution to the subsystem. Perhaps this is simply too much overhead process requirements