drm/doc: More fine-tuning on userspace review requirements

Submitted by Daniel Vetter on May 21, 2019, 8:48 a.m.

Details

Message ID 20190521084849.27452-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
State Accepted
Commit e33df4ca87174f6e97a28c8e7efc65e7250c3b8c
Headers show
Series "drm/doc: More fine-tuning on userspace review requirements" ( rev: 1 ) in DRI devel

Not browsing as part of any series.

Commit Message

Daniel Vetter May 21, 2019, 8:48 a.m.
With Eric's patch

commit ba6e798ecf320716780bb6a6088a8d17dcba1d49
Author: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Date:   Wed Apr 24 11:56:17 2019 -0700

    drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.

there's been concerns raised that we expect userspace people to do
in-depth kernel patch review. That's not reasonable, same way kernel
people can't review all the userspace we have. Try to clarify
expectations a bit more.

Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Cc: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>
Cc: contact@emersion.fr
Cc: wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
---
 Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
index 05874d09820c..f368e58fb727 100644
--- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
@@ -85,9 +85,9 @@  leads to a few additional requirements:
 - The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that
   userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the
   mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the
-  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide at least an
-  Acked-by on the kernel uAPI patch indicating that they've looked at how the
-  kernel side is implementing the new feature being used.
+  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide an Acked-by on the
+  kernel uAPI patch indicating that they believe the proposed uAPI is sound and
+  sufficiently documented and validated for userspace's consumption.
 
 - The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor
   fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing

Comments


On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:48 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> With Eric's patch
>
> commit ba6e798ecf320716780bb6a6088a8d17dcba1d49
> Author: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> Date:   Wed Apr 24 11:56:17 2019 -0700
>
>     drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.
>
> there's been concerns raised that we expect userspace people to do
> in-depth kernel patch review. That's not reasonable, same way kernel
> people can't review all the userspace we have. Try to clarify
> expectations a bit more.
>
> Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> Cc: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>
> Cc: contact@emersion.fr
> Cc: wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>

This LGTM, thanks for the patch! One tiny nit below, but regardless of
whether it's changed or not:

Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>

> ---
>  Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> index 05874d09820c..f368e58fb727 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> @@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
>  - The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that
>    userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the
>    mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the
> -  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide at least an
> -  Acked-by on the kernel uAPI patch indicating that they've looked at how the
> -  kernel side is implementing the new feature being used.
> +  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide an Acked-by on the
> +  kernel uAPI patch indicating that they believe the proposed uAPI is sound and
> +  sufficiently documented and validated for userspace's consumption.

Nit: "and" is repeated twice (maybe that's intentional?)

>  - The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor
>    fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing
> --
> 2.20.1
>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:07:12PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 10:48:49 +0200
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 
> > With Eric's patch
> > 
> > commit ba6e798ecf320716780bb6a6088a8d17dcba1d49
> > Author: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> > Date:   Wed Apr 24 11:56:17 2019 -0700
> > 
> >     drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.
> > 
> > there's been concerns raised that we expect userspace people to do
> > in-depth kernel patch review. That's not reasonable, same way kernel
> > people can't review all the userspace we have. Try to clarify
> > expectations a bit more.
> > 
> > Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
> > Cc: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>
> > Cc: contact@emersion.fr
> > Cc: wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > index 05874d09820c..f368e58fb727 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst
> > @@ -85,9 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
> >  - The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that
> >    userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the
> >    mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the
> > -  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide at least an
> > -  Acked-by on the kernel uAPI patch indicating that they've looked at how the
> > -  kernel side is implementing the new feature being used.
> > +  job done.  The userspace-side reviewer should also provide an Acked-by on the
> > +  kernel uAPI patch indicating that they believe the proposed uAPI is sound and
> > +  sufficiently documented and validated for userspace's consumption.
> >  
> >  - The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor
> >    fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing
> 
> Thank you for clarifying this. I can work with that.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.com>

Merged with Eric's irc-ack, thanks everyone for helping improve this text.
-Daniel