| Message ID | 8f9271b6-0381-70a9-f0c2-595b2235866a@stuerz.xyz (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz> writes: > This patch series replaces comments with C99's designated initializers > in a few places. It also adds some enum initializers. This is my first > time contributing to the Linux kernel, therefore I'm probably doing a > lot of things the wrong way. I'm sorry for that. Just a small tip: If you are new, start with something small and learn from that. Don't do a controversial big patchset spanning multiple subsystems, that's the hard way to learn things. First submit one patch at a time to one subsystem and gain understanding of the process that way.
On 28.03.22 11:33, Kalle Valo wrote: > Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz> writes: > >> This patch series replaces comments with C99's designated initializers >> in a few places. It also adds some enum initializers. This is my first >> time contributing to the Linux kernel, therefore I'm probably doing a >> lot of things the wrong way. I'm sorry for that. > > Just a small tip: If you are new, start with something small and learn > from that. Don't do a controversial big patchset spanning multiple > subsystems, that's the hard way to learn things. First submit one patch > at a time to one subsystem and gain understanding of the process that > way. > I actually thought this would be such simple thing. Do you know of any good thing where to start? I already looked into drivers/staging/*/TODO and didn't found something for me personally. Should I drop this patchset and start with something different? If yes, what would the proper way to drop it? Just announcing, that this is going nowhere in a separate patch?
Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz> writes: > On 28.03.22 11:33, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz> writes: >> >>> This patch series replaces comments with C99's designated initializers >>> in a few places. It also adds some enum initializers. This is my first >>> time contributing to the Linux kernel, therefore I'm probably doing a >>> lot of things the wrong way. I'm sorry for that. >> >> Just a small tip: If you are new, start with something small and learn >> from that. Don't do a controversial big patchset spanning multiple >> subsystems, that's the hard way to learn things. First submit one patch >> at a time to one subsystem and gain understanding of the process that >> way. > > I actually thought this would be such simple thing. If there are 22 patches and a dozen different subsystems it's far from simple, as you noticed from your replies :) > Do you know of any good thing where to start? I already looked into > drivers/staging/*/TODO and didn't found something for me personally. I work in wireless and one my annoyance is use of BUG_ON() in wireless drivers. There just isn't a good reason to crash the whole system when there's a bug in a wireless driver or firmware. You can get list like this: git grep BUG_ON drivers/net/wireless/ | grep -v BUILD_BUG_ON It might not be always trivial to fix BUG_ON() usage, so it would be a good challenge as well. See the wiki link below how to submit wireless patches. But just send a one patch first, don't work for several hours and then submit a big set of patches. We also might have a todo list somewhere in the wiki, but don't know how to up-to-date it is. > Should I drop this patchset and start with something different? Like Mauro suggested, splitting the patchset per subsystem is a very good idea. And first try out with one subsystem, and after seeing how it goes (if they are accepted or rejected), decide if you send more patches to other subsystems. > If yes, what would the proper way to drop it? Just announcing, that > this is going nowhere in a separate patch? Replying to Mauro's email and telling your intentions is a good way to inform everyone.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 02:46:00PM +0200, Benjamin Stürz wrote: > This patch series replaces comments with C99's designated initializers > in a few places. It also adds some enum initializers. This is my first > time contributing to the Linux kernel, therefore I'm probably doing a > lot of things the wrong way. I'm sorry for that. Welcome! > I've gotten a few emails so far stating that this patch series is > unnecessary. Yes, in fact this patch series is not necessary by itself, > but it could help me understand how the whole process works and maybe I > could help somewhere, where help is actually needed. Have you been told the series is unnecessary or too big? Although all patches represent a variant of the same mechanical transformation but they are mostly unrelated to each other and, if accepted, they will be applied by many different people. Taken as a whole presenting this to maintainers as a 22 patch set is too big. I'd recommend starting with a smaller patch or patch series where all the patches get picked up by the same maintainer. > This patch itself is a no-op. PATCH 0/XX is for the covering letter. You should generate a template for it using the --cover-letter option of git format-patch. That way patch 0 will contain the diffstat for the whole series (which is often useful to help understand what the series is for) and there is no need to make no-op changes. Daniel. > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz> > --- > .gitignore | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore > index 7afd412dadd2..706f667261eb 100644 > --- a/.gitignore > +++ b/.gitignore > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ > *.dtb > *.dtbo > *.dtb.S > -*.dwo > +*.dwo > *.elf > *.gcno > *.gz > -- > 2.35.1
On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 13:51:42 +0200 Benjamin Stürz wrote: > > Just a small tip: If you are new, start with something small and learn > > from that. Don't do a controversial big patchset spanning multiple > > subsystems, that's the hard way to learn things. First submit one patch > > at a time to one subsystem and gain understanding of the process that > > way. > > I actually thought this would be such simple thing. Do you know of any > good thing where to start? I already looked into drivers/staging/*/TODO > and didn't found something for me personally. FWIW on the netdev side there's work coming to convert a set of features from unsigned long to a BITMAP which will require converting a lot of drivers to an explicit helpers from direct access. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220324154932.17557-14-shenjian15@huawei.com/ If it seems interesting enough you can try reaching out to Jian Shen.
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 7afd412dadd2..706f667261eb 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ *.dtb *.dtbo *.dtb.S -*.dwo +*.dwo *.elf *.gcno *.gz
This patch series replaces comments with C99's designated initializers in a few places. It also adds some enum initializers. This is my first time contributing to the Linux kernel, therefore I'm probably doing a lot of things the wrong way. I'm sorry for that. I've gotten a few emails so far stating that this patch series is unnecessary. Yes, in fact this patch series is not necessary by itself, but it could help me understand how the whole process works and maybe I could help somewhere, where help is actually needed. This patch itself is a no-op. Signed-off-by: Benjamin Stürz <benni@stuerz.xyz> --- .gitignore | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)