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

[Simon Ser]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 11:48 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> With Eric's patch
>
> commit ba6e798ecf320716780bb6a6088a8d17dcba1d49
> Author: Eric Anholt <eric at 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 at anholt.net>
> Cc: Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>
> Cc: contact at emersion.fr
> Cc: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at 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 at 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
>