On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:14:55PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Is it really intended to merge drivers without _any_ kind of review? > > I'd really rather have the driver merged, and then *other* people can send > patches! > > The thing is, that's what merging really means - people can work on it > sanely together. Before it's merged, it's a lot harder for people to work > on it unless they are really serious about that driver, so before > merging, the janitorial kind of things seldom happen. > > So yes, I really do believe that we should merge drivers in particular a > lot more aggressively. I'd like to see *testing* feedback, in order to not > merge drivers that simply don't work well enough, but anything else? I > suspect other feedback is as likely to cause problems as it is to fix > things. > > > This driver even lacks a basic "please fix the > 250 checkpatch errors" [1] > > and similar low hanging fruits that could easily be spotted and then > > fixed by the submitter within a short amount of time. > > Quite frankly, I've several times been *this* close (holds up fingers so > you can't even see between them) to just remove checkpatch entirely.
Agrh! What stopped you?! > I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are > anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines (where the > "fixed" version is usually worse than the original), but it's been true > for some other warnings too. Speaking of driver, could authors please comment all those barrier() calls and remove trailing "return;" at the end of void functions. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
