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

Pekka Paalanen ppaalanen at gmail.com
Tue May 21 09:07:12 UTC 2019

On Tue, 21 May 2019 10:48:49 +0200
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>
> ---
>  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 at collabora.com>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20190521/2dd13df3/attachment.sig>

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list