| Message ID | 20230606-rehab-monsoon-12c17bbe08e3@wendy (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | b104dbedbe61d89a933479f8effce6409037ef73 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's role | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next at HEAD 90502d51ab90 |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 6 and now 6 |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 3 this patch: 3 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 24 lines checked |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> writes: > Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the > weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we > should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork > instance plays in patch acceptance. > > Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end. > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> > --- > I was also not sure if this was the correct doc for this, or whether a > process/maintainer-riscv.rst file was better suited. There's clearly no > rush on this though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm fine with this file. Thanks for adding it! Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 07:59:19 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the > weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we > should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork > instance plays in patch acceptance. > > Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's role https://git.kernel.org/palmer/c/b104dbedbe61 Best regards,
Hello: This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes) by Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>: On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 07:59:19 +0100 you wrote: > Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the > weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we > should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork > instance plays in patch acceptance. > > Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [v2] Documentation: RISC-V: patch-acceptance: mention patchwork's role https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/b104dbedbe61 You are awesome, thank you!
diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 07d5a5623e2a..634aa222b410 100644 --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst @@ -16,6 +16,24 @@ tested code over experimental code. We wish to extend these same principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for inclusion in the kernel. +Patchwork +--------- + +RISC-V has a patchwork instance, where the status of patches can be checked: + + https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/ + +If your patch does not appear in the default view, the RISC-V maintainers have +likely either requested changes, or expect it to be applied to another tree. + +Automation runs against this patchwork instance, building/testing patches as +they arrive. The automation applies patches against the current HEAD of the +RISC-V `for-next` and `fixes` branches, depending on whether the patch has been +detected as a fix. Failing those, it will use the RISC-V `master` branch. +The exact commit to which a series has been applied will be noted on patchwork. +Patches for which any of the checks fail are unlikely to be applied and in most +cases will need to be resubmitted. + Submit Checklist Addendum ------------------------- We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
Palmer suggested at some point, not sure if it was in one of the weekly linux-riscv syncs, or a conversation at FOSDEM, that we should document the role of the automation running on our patchwork instance plays in patch acceptance. Add a short note to the patch-acceptance document to that end. Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> --- I was also not sure if this was the correct doc for this, or whether a process/maintainer-riscv.rst file was better suited. There's clearly no rush on this though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Changes in v2: - mention that riscv/master is now also a possible application target. CC: Björn Töpel <bjorn@kernel.org> CC: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com> CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> CC: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org --- Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)