| Message ID | 20230511-equation-decline-56b638ff9440@wendy (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] 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 ac9a78681b92 |
| 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: 14 this patch: 14 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 28 this patch: 28 |
| 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 |
diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst index 1d1fb885326b..76ec57626043 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. 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> --- The bit about fixes being applied to riscv/fixes is not actually correct, it's actually linux-next/pending-fixes. We've not had issues with the fixes branch being broken in a while, but I switched it over to pending-fixes due to the KVM breakage. I'll swap back to match the documentation I'm adding. 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)_/¯ 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(+)