RFE: use patchwork to submit a patch

Fri Nov 8 20:44:25 AEDT 2019

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote:
> > On 10/11/19 2:57 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > >> Hi, all:
> > >>
> > >> I would like to propose a new (large) feature to patchwork with the goal to
> > >> make the process of submitting a patch easier for newbies and people
> > >> generally less familiar with patch-based development. This was discussed
> > >> previously on the workflows list:
> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/20190930202451.GA14403@pure.paranoia.local/
> > >>
> > >> How I envision this would work:
> > >>
> > >> - user creates an account (which requires a mail confirmation) >> - they choose a "submit patch" option from the menu
> > >> - the patch submission screen has a succession of screens:
> > >>
> > >>   1. a screen with a single field allowing a user to paste a URL to     their
> > >> fork of the git repository. Once submitted, patchwork does a     "git
> > >> ls-remote" to attempt to get a list of refs and to verify that     this is
> > >> indeed a valid git repository
> > >
> > > s/valid git repository/valid git repository based on the kernel git tree/
> > >
> > > Otherwise you might be sending out lots of emails for other projects :)
> > >
> > >>
> > >>   2. next screen asks the user to select the ref to work from using the
> > >> list obtained from the remote. Once submitted, patchwork performs a     `git
> > >> clone --reference` to clone the repository locally using a     local fork of
> > >> the same repo to minimize object transfer. This part     requires that:
> > >>        a. patchwork project is configured with a path to a local fork,
> > >> if this feature is enabled for a project
> > >>        b. that fork is kept current via some mechanism outside of
> > >> patchwork (e.g. with grokmirror)
> > >>        c. there is some sanity-checking during the clone process to
> > >> avoid abuse (e.g. a sane timeout, a tmpdir with limited size,          etc
> > >> -- other suggestions welcome)
> > >>
> > >>   3. next screen asks the user to pick a starting commit from the log.
> > >> Once submitted, patchwork generates the patch from the commit     provided
> > >> to the tip of the branch selected by the user earlier,
> > >>      using git format-patch.
> > >>
> > >>   4. next screen asks the user to review the patch to make sure this is
> > >> what they want to submit. Once confirmed, patchwork performs two
> > >> admin-defined optional hooks:
> > >>
> > >>        a. a hook to generate a list of cc's (e.g. get_maintainer.pl)
> > >>        b. a sanity check hook (e.g. checkpatch.pl)
> > >
> > > I will note that many "first patch" submissions are checkpatch.pl
> > > cleanups for staging.  When doing that, I require that they do "one
> > > logical change per patch", which means that many of the individual
> > > patches themselves will not be checkpatch.pl clean, because many lines
> > > have multiple issues with them (tabs, spaces, format, length, etc.)
> > >
> > > So other than that minor thing, sounds interesting.  It's hard to
> > > determine just how difficult the whole "set up git and send a patch out"
> > > process is for people these days given the _huge_ numbers of new
> > > contributions we keep getting, and the numerous good tutorials we have
> > > created that spell out exactly how to do this.
> > >
> > > So you might be "solving" a problem that we don't really have.  It's
> > > hard to tell :(
> > >
> >
> > I agree with this. I don't think this a problem that is worth solving.
> > When a new developer wants to send a patch, they don't need to create
> > any accounts. They setup their email client and send patch.
> >
> > We have several resources that walk them through setting up email
> > clients and sending patches. checkpatch.pl can be automated with
> > git hooks.
> >
> > >> I know this is a pretty big RFE, and I would like to hear your thoughts
> > >> about this. If there is general agreement that this is doable/good idea, I
> > >> may be able to come up with funding for this development as part of the
> > >> overall tooling improvement proposal.
> > >
> > > The workflow seems sane, and matches what most people do today, with the
> > > exception that it "solves" the git send-email issue, right?  Is that our
> > > biggest barrier?
> > >
> > > I would recommend interviewing some of the recent kernel mentor project
> > > and outreachy applicants first, to try to determine exactly what their
> > > problems, if any, were with our development process.  If they say that
> > > this type of tool/workflow would have saved them hours of time and
> > > energy, then that's a great indication that we should try to do this.
> > >
> >
> > I would say considering the number of applicants to mentorship program
> > and new developers it will be lot overhead to require them to create
> > patchwork accounts, and it might even be hard overtime. A lot of them
> > start out and drop out in the middle. With the current setup, nothing
> > to cleanup.
> >
> > Setting up email clients and git hooks is one time task. It is the
> > easiest of the learning curve for many new developers. New developers
> > struggle with getting the change logs right, coding styles right, and
> > responding to review comments and acting on them.
> >
> > These aren't something that can be automated and they just have to
> > learn through experience of sending patches.
> >
> > My opinion based on contact with new developers as well running the
> > mentorship program, I would sat this isn't something that needs
> > solving.

As yet another data point re emails.
Shuah, you are aware that you can't send proper emails either? ;)

syzbot asks to provide fixing commit in a particular format (and on 1
line, otherwise not possible to parse back).

It sent this yesterday:
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=syzkaller-bugs/IZZUu-BobtI/xAkxm6H4EQAJ
-------------------
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; delsp=yes

If the result looks correct, please mark the bug fixed by replying with:
#syz fix: usb: usbip: Fix BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in
vhci_hub_control()
-------------------

(Not sure you will be able to see what exactly I am sending after my
email client, so resort to the link for exact content :))

Which is still presumably correct: "format=flowed; delsp=yes" + 2
spaces before line wrap.

However, what you replied is corrupted:
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=syzkaller-bugs/IZZUu-BobtI/xAkxm6H4EQAJ
-------------------
#syz fix: usb: usbip: Fix BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in
vhci_hub_control()
-------------------

Which means that the bug is fixed with "usb: usbip: Fix BUG: KASAN:
slab-out-of-bounds in" (last part is omitted). And this is what syzbot
has recorded:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=600b03e0cf1b73bb23c4

Such commit never existed, so syzbot will get back to you in future
suggesting that the commit you provided is incorrect and asking to
provide a correct one.

That's what happens when you try to build processes around email...

> > thanks,
> > -- Shuah
>
>
> As one data point, I cannot send emails with git send-email anymore.
> It used to work, then broke and I don't know how to fix it. Now it says:
>
> 5.7.8 Username and Password not accepted. Learn more at
> 5.7.8  https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BadCredentials
> s10sm8376885wrr.5 - gsmtp
>
> I suspect it has something to do with two factor auth.
> So that's it: it cannot contribute to kernel right now.
> I will not consider time spent fixing it as useful time investment.
>
> Any kernel documentation that I can find for gmail, mentions config
> that I am already using and that is not working:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/search.html?q=gmail&check_keywords=yes&area=default#
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/email-clients.html?highlight=gmail
>
> As another data point, I spoke to KP Singh at the Plumbers. He is a
> "returning" kernel developer (so already did this before), he said it
> took him 3 days and 52 configurations changes (all were committed to
> git, so was possible to count exactly) to setup mail client properly.
> And he is "staffed" to do kernel work, I would expect that most people
> who don't _have_ to do kernel contributions will turn away half-way.
>
> As another data point, several people told me that they are afraid of
> sending kernel patches b/c there is so much "on you" to do right.
>
> I would say that we need to aim at  a process that does not require a
> friendly experienced person to answer any of your questions in the
> common case. Lots of people will simply not ask any questions.