Merge tag 'docs-5.5a' of git://git.lwn.net/linux

Pull Documentation updates from Jonathan Corbet:
 "Here are the main documentation changes for 5.5:

   - Various kerneldoc script enhancements.

   - More RST conversions; those are slowing down as we run out of
     things to convert, but we're a ways from done still.

   - Dan's "maintainer profile entry" work landed at last. Now we just
     need to get maintainers to fill in the profiles...

   - A reworking of the parallel build setup to work better with a
     variety of systems (and to not take over huge systems entirely in
     particular).

   - The MAINTAINERS file is now converted to RST during the build.
     Hopefully nobody ever tries to print this thing, or they will need
     to load a lot of paper.

   - A script and documentation making it easy for maintainers to add
     Link: tags at commit time.

  Also included is the removal of a bunch of spurious CR characters"

* tag 'docs-5.5a' of git://git.lwn.net/linux: (91 commits)
  docs: remove a bunch of stray CRs
  docs: fix up the maintainer profile document
  libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Maintainer Entry Profile
  Maintainer Handbook: Maintainer Entry Profile
  MAINTAINERS: Reclaim the P: tag for Maintainer Entry Profile
  docs, parallelism: Rearrange how jobserver reservations are made
  docs, parallelism: Do not leak blocking mode to other readers
  docs, parallelism: Fix failure path and add comment
  Documentation: Remove bootmem_debug from kernel-parameters.txt
  Documentation: security: core.rst: fix warnings
  Documentation/process/howto/kokr: Update for 4.x -> 5.x versioning
  Documentation/translation: Use Korean for Korean translation title
  docs/memory-barriers.txt: Remove remaining references to mmiowb()
  docs/memory-barriers.txt/kokr: Update I/O section to be clearer about CPU vs thread
  docs/memory-barriers.txt/kokr: Fix style, spacing and grammar in I/O section
  Documentation/kokr: Kill all references to mmiowb()
  docs/memory-barriers.txt/kokr: Rewrite "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section
  docs: Add initial documentation for devfreq
  Documentation: Document how to get links with git am
  docs: Add request_irq() documentation
  ...

1 files changed, 102 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..3eaddc8ac56d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+.. _maintainerentryprofile:
+
+Maintainer Entry Profile
+========================
+
+The Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process documents
+(submitting-patches, submitting drivers...) with
+subsystem/device-driver-local customs as well as details about the patch
+submission life-cycle. A contributor uses this document to level set
+their expectations and avoid common mistakes, maintainers may use these
+profiles to look across subsystems for opportunities to converge on
+common practices.
+
+
+Overview
+--------
+Provide an introduction to how the subsystem operates. While MAINTAINERS
+tells the contributor where to send patches for which files, it does not
+convey other subsystem-local infrastructure and mechanisms that aid
+development.
+
+Example questions to consider:
+
+- Are there notifications when patches are applied to the local tree, or
+  merged upstream?
+- Does the subsystem have a patchwork instance? Are patchwork state
+  changes notified?
+- Any bots or CI infrastructure that watches the list, or automated
+  testing feedback that the subsystem gates acceptance?
+- Git branches that are pulled into -next?
+- What branch should contributors submit against?
+- Links to any other Maintainer Entry Profiles? For example a
+  device-driver may point to an entry for its parent subsystem. This makes
+  the contributor aware of obligations a maintainer may have have for
+  other maintainers in the submission chain.
+
+
+Submit Checklist Addendum
+-------------------------
+List mandatory and advisory criteria, beyond the common "submit-checklist",
+for a patch to be considered healthy enough for maintainer attention.
+For example: "pass checkpatch.pl with no errors, or warning. Pass the
+unit test detailed at $URI".
+
+The Submit Checklist Addendum can also include details about the status
+of related hardware specifications. For example, does the subsystem
+require published specifications at a certain revision before patches
+will be considered.
+
+
+Key Cycle Dates
+---------------
+One of the common misunderstandings of submitters is that patches can be
+sent at any time before the merge window closes and can still be
+considered for the next -rc1. The reality is that most patches need to
+be settled in soaking in linux-next in advance of the merge window
+opening. Clarify for the submitter the key dates (in terms rc release
+week) that patches might considered for merging and when patches need to
+wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
+
+- Last -rc for new feature submissions:
+  New feature submissions targeting the next merge window should have
+  their first posting for consideration before this point. Patches that
+  are submitted after this point should be clear that they are targeting
+  the NEXT+1 merge window, or should come with sufficient justification
+  why they should be considered on an expedited schedule. A general
+  guideline is to set expectation with contributors that new feature
+  submissions should appear before -rc5.
+
+- Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions
+  Indicate to contributors the point at which an as yet un-applied patch
+  set will need to wait for the NEXT+1 merge window. Of course there is no
+  obligation to ever except any given patchset, but if the review has not
+  concluded by this point the expectation the contributor should wait and
+  resubmit for the following merge window.
+
+Optional:
+
+- First -rc at which the development baseline branch, listed in the
+  overview section, should be considered ready for new submissions.
+
+
+Review Cadence
+--------------
+One of the largest sources of contributor angst is how soon to ping
+after a patchset has been posted without receiving any feedback. In
+addition to specifying how long to wait before a resubmission this
+section can also indicate a preferred style of update like, resend the
+full series, or privately send a reminder email. This section might also
+list how review works for this code area and methods to get feedback
+that are not directly from the maintainer.
+
+Existing profiles
+-----------------
+
+For now, existing maintainer profiles are listed here; we will likely want
+to do something different in the near future.
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 1
+
+   ../nvdimm/maintainer-entry-profile