drm-misc Committer Guidelines¶
This document describes the detailed merge criteria and committer guidelines for drm-misc. The same criteria and guidelines apply equally to both committers and maintainers.
Where Do I Apply My Patch?¶
Consult this handy flowchart to determine the best branch for your patch. If in doubt, apply to drm-misc-next or ask your favorite maintainer on IRC.
Right now the only hard merge criteria are:
- There must not be open issues or unresolved or conflicting feedback from anyone. Clear them up first. Defer to maintainers as needed.
- Patch is properly reviewed or at least Ack, i.e. don’t just push your own stuff directly. This rule holds even more for bugfix patches - it would be embarrassing if the bugfix contains a small gotcha that review would have caught.
- drm-misc is for drm core (non-driver) patches, subsystem-wide refactorings, and small trivial patches all over (including drivers). For a detailed list of what’s all maintained in drm-misc grep for “drm-misc” in MAINTAINERS.
- Larger features can be merged through drm-misc too, but in some cases (especially when there are cross-subsystem conflicts) it might make sense to merge patches through a dedicated topic tree. The dim tooling has full support for them, if needed.
- Any non-linear actions (backmerges, merging topic branches and sending out pull requests) are only done by the official drm-misc maintainers (see MAINTAINERS, or ask #dri-devel), and not by committers. See the examples section in dim for more info
- All the x86, arm and arm64 DRM drivers need to still compile. To simplify this we track defconfigs for all three platforms in the rerere-cache branch.
- The goal is to also pre-check everything with CI. Unfortunately neither the arm side (using kernelci.org and generic i-g-t tests) nor the Intel side (using Intel CI infrastructure and the full i-g-t suite) is yet fully ready for production.
- No rebasing out mistakes, because this is a shared tree.
- See also the extensive drm-intel Committer Guidelines.
Small drivers, where a full tree is overkill, can be maintained in drm-misc. Slightly different rules apply:
- Small is measured in patches merged per kernel release. The occasional big patch series is still acceptable if it’s not a common thing (e.g. new hw enabling once a year), and if the series is really big (more than 20 patches) it should probably be managed through a topic branch in drm-misc and with a separate pull request to drm maintainer. dim supports this with the create-branch command. Everything that doesn’t justify a topic branch goes into the normal drm-misc branches directly.
- Group maintainership is assumed, i.e. all regular contributors (not just the primary maintainer) will get commit rights.
- Since even a broken driver is more useful than no driver minimal review standards are a lot lower. The default should be some notes about what could be improved in follow-up work and accepting patches by default. Maintainer group for drivers can agree on stricter rules, especially when they have a bigger user base that shouldn’t suffer from regressions.
- Minimal peer-review is also expected for drivers with just one contributor, but obviously then only focuses on best practices for the interaction with drm core and helpers. Plus a bit looking for common patterns in dealing with the hardware, since display IP all has to handle the same issues in the end. In most cases this will just along the lines of “Looks good, Ack”. drm-misc maintainers will help out with getting that review market going.
- Best practice for review: When you have some suggestions and comments for future work, please make sure you don’t forget your Ack tag to unblock the original patch. And if you think something really must be fixed before merging, please give a conditional Ack along the lines of “Fix $specific_thing, with that addressed, Ack”. The goal is to always have a clear and reasonable speedy path towards getting the patch merged. For authors on the other side, just do the minimal rework and push the patch, and do any more involved rework in follow-up work. This way lengthy review cycles get avoided, which are a drag for both reviewer and author.