summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/gpu
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>2019-05-21 11:48:49 +0300
committerDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>2019-06-03 10:39:24 +0300
commite33df4ca87174f6e97a28c8e7efc65e7250c3b8c (patch)
treea87aafd9b804a68516a9d381bd1457318811c4af /Documentation/gpu
parentff5781634c41167bb1d8f9620fba1c9c833780ec (diff)
downloadlinux-e33df4ca87174f6e97a28c8e7efc65e7250c3b8c.tar.xz
drm/doc: More fine-tuning on userspace review requirements
With Eric's patch commit ba6e798ecf320716780bb6a6088a8d17dcba1d49 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
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/gpu')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst6
1 files 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