From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D2612F83 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:43:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6400B1C8; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 21:30:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: James Bottomley cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, James Bottomley wrote: > I've long been on record as not really being a fan of trivial patches > because they can cause merge issues with current patches and introduce > bugs, particularly in older drivers, that don't get detected for a long > while. However, the recent events with the University of Minnesota: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210421130105.1226686-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org/ > > Have elevated the risk factor around trivial patches claiming to fix > bugs to the point where it looks like there's no such thing as a truly > trivial patch and they all need reviewing. I am all for discussing policy of trivial patches (*), but just to make it clear -- I don't think that's really directly related to the University of Minnesota issue. Most of the patches they sent were not really falling into the "trivial" category at all -- they were actual substantial functional changes. As such, big part of them would never meet the 'trivial' criteria as defined in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs