<p dir="ltr">On Nov 26, 2016 1:28 PM, "Bjørn Mork" <<a href="mailto:bjorn@mork.no">bjorn@mork.no</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Greg KH <<a href="mailto:greg@kroah.com">greg@kroah.com</a>> writes:<br>
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 01:02:14PM -0500, Walt Feasel wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> So kernelnewbies is not to be used to learn about how to fix<br>
> >> checkpatch type warning?<br>
> ><br>
> > Maybe, but really, if you have a well-formed patch, just send it to the<br>
> > correct maintainers, it's up to them to accept it or not, that's their<br>
> > job :)<br>
><br>
> And I think the most important reason for doing that is because only<br>
> they can answer the questions. You need to know what the code does to<br>
> be able to answer things like "is it OK to replace BUG_ON with WARN_ON<br>
> here?". Although that is preferable according to checkpatch, it's not<br>
> necessarily a 1-to-1 replacement. The error path changes, and the<br>
> existing code is likely not tested or developed with the new path in<br>
> mind.<br>
><br>
> Nobody(?) in kernelnewbies knows anything about the apparmor code. It's<br>
> not that we don't want to answer. We just can't.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">I think a better approach is to document your thoughts possibly in Documentation/ than posting random patches to teach people what YOU think needs learning.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Also people can already, if they need to, learn from patches posted on LKML about what THEY want to learn :).</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks, <br>
Joel<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> Bjørn<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Kernelnewbies mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org">Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies">https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies</a><br></p>