Lines Matching full:code

16 code.  You, as the author of that code, will be expected to work with the
17 kernel community to ensure that your code is up to the kernel's quality
26 developers as they review the code.  Working with reviewers can be, for
34    like to maintain a kernel with this code in it five or ten years later?
39  - Code review is hard work, and it is a relatively thankless occupation;
40    people remember who wrote kernel code, but there is little lasting fame
44    impulse to respond in kind.  Code review is about the code, not about
45    the people, and code reviewers are not attacking you personally.
47  - Similarly, code reviewers are not trying to promote their employers'
55    and requests to factor out some of your code to shared parts of
70 reviewers.  If you believe that the reviewer has misunderstood your code,
81 in a code change should result in an additional code comment instead; that
86 go away.  They will not go away.  If you repost code without having
90 Speaking of reposting code: please bear in mind that reviewers are not
91 going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time
97 when they revisit your code.
154 longer any question of your code being merged.  Resist that temptation,
158 More importantly, though: inclusion into the mainline puts your code into
161 how many people will build your code into their kernels.  And, of course,
175 fix these bugs and ensure that your code's debut in a mainline kernel
186 development community remembers developers who lose interest in their code
196 a patch to your code.  That is one of the advantages of having your code
206 are opposed by the author and maintainer of the code, but it only goes so
209 kernel, nobody has absolute veto power over any code.  Except maybe Linus.