Commit e33df4ca authored May 21, 2019 by Daniel Vetter

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



With Eric's patch

commit ba6e798e
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
Acked-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190521084849.27452-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch

parent ff578163

Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst

+3 −3

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -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

Admin message