Commit ba6e798e authored by Eric Anholt's avatar Eric Anholt

drm/doc: Document expectation that userspace review looks at kernel uAPI.

The point of this review process is that userspace using the new uAPI
can actually live with the uAPI being provided, and it's hard to know
that without having actually looked into a kernel patch yourself.
Signed-off-by: default avatarEric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Suggested-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190424185617.16865-2-eric@anholt.netReviewed-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
parent 3d42fca0
...@@ -85,7 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements: ...@@ -85,7 +85,9 @@ leads to a few additional requirements:
- The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that - 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 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 mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the
job done. 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.
- The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor - 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 fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment