| rjw | 1f88458 | 2022-01-06 17:20:42 +0800 | [diff] [blame] | 1 |  | 
|  | 2 | Information you need to know about netdev | 
|  | 3 | ----------------------------------------- | 
|  | 4 |  | 
|  | 5 | Q: What is netdev? | 
|  | 6 |  | 
|  | 7 | A: It is a mailing list for all network-related Linux stuff.  This includes | 
|  | 8 | anything found under net/  (i.e. core code like IPv6) and drivers/net | 
|  | 9 | (i.e. hardware specific drivers) in the Linux source tree. | 
|  | 10 |  | 
|  | 11 | Note that some subsystems (e.g. wireless drivers) which have a high volume | 
|  | 12 | of traffic have their own specific mailing lists. | 
|  | 13 |  | 
|  | 14 | The netdev list is managed (like many other Linux mailing lists) through | 
|  | 15 | VGER ( http://vger.kernel.org/ ) and archives can be found below: | 
|  | 16 |  | 
|  | 17 | http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev | 
|  | 18 | http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/ | 
|  | 19 |  | 
|  | 20 | Aside from subsystems like that mentioned above, all network-related Linux | 
|  | 21 | development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on netdev. | 
|  | 22 |  | 
|  | 23 | Q: How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux? | 
|  | 24 |  | 
|  | 25 | A: There are always two trees (git repositories) in play.  Both are driven | 
|  | 26 | by David Miller, the main network maintainer.  There is the "net" tree, | 
|  | 27 | and the "net-next" tree.  As you can probably guess from the names, the | 
|  | 28 | net tree is for fixes to existing code already in the mainline tree from | 
|  | 29 | Linus, and net-next is where the new code goes for the future release. | 
|  | 30 | You can find the trees here: | 
|  | 31 |  | 
|  | 32 | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git | 
|  | 33 | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git | 
|  | 34 |  | 
|  | 35 | Q: How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree? | 
|  | 36 |  | 
|  | 37 | A: To understand this, you need to know a bit of background information | 
|  | 38 | on the cadence of Linux development.  Each new release starts off with | 
|  | 39 | a two week "merge window" where the main maintainers feed their new | 
|  | 40 | stuff to Linus for merging into the mainline tree.  After the two weeks, | 
|  | 41 | the merge window is closed, and it is called/tagged "-rc1".  No new | 
|  | 42 | features get mainlined after this -- only fixes to the rc1 content | 
|  | 43 | are expected.  After roughly a week of collecting fixes to the rc1 | 
|  | 44 | content, rc2 is released.  This repeats on a roughly weekly basis | 
|  | 45 | until rc7 (typically; sometimes rc6 if things are quiet, or rc8 if | 
|  | 46 | things are in a state of churn), and a week after the last vX.Y-rcN | 
|  | 47 | was done, the official "vX.Y" is released. | 
|  | 48 |  | 
|  | 49 | Relating that to netdev:  At the beginning of the 2-week merge window, | 
|  | 50 | the net-next tree will be closed - no new changes/features.  The | 
|  | 51 | accumulated new content of the past ~10 weeks will be passed onto | 
|  | 52 | mainline/Linus via a pull request for vX.Y -- at the same time, | 
|  | 53 | the "net" tree will start accumulating fixes for this pulled content | 
|  | 54 | relating to vX.Y | 
|  | 55 |  | 
|  | 56 | An announcement indicating when net-next has been closed is usually | 
|  | 57 | sent to netdev, but knowing the above, you can predict that in advance. | 
|  | 58 |  | 
|  | 59 | IMPORTANT:  Do not send new net-next content to netdev during the | 
|  | 60 | period during which net-next tree is closed. | 
|  | 61 |  | 
|  | 62 | Shortly after the two weeks have passed (and vX.Y-rc1 is released), the | 
|  | 63 | tree for net-next reopens to collect content for the next (vX.Y+1) release. | 
|  | 64 |  | 
|  | 65 | If you aren't subscribed to netdev and/or are simply unsure if net-next | 
|  | 66 | has re-opened yet, simply check the net-next git repository link above for | 
|  | 67 | any new networking-related commits. | 
|  | 68 |  | 
|  | 69 | The "net" tree continues to collect fixes for the vX.Y content, and | 
|  | 70 | is fed back to Linus at regular (~weekly) intervals.  Meaning that the | 
|  | 71 | focus for "net" is on stabilization and bugfixes. | 
|  | 72 |  | 
|  | 73 | Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over. | 
|  | 74 |  | 
|  | 75 | Q: So where are we now in this cycle? | 
|  | 76 |  | 
|  | 77 | A: Load the mainline (Linus) page here: | 
|  | 78 |  | 
|  | 79 | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git | 
|  | 80 |  | 
|  | 81 | and note the top of the "tags" section.  If it is rc1, it is early | 
|  | 82 | in the dev cycle.  If it was tagged rc7 a week ago, then a release | 
|  | 83 | is probably imminent. | 
|  | 84 |  | 
|  | 85 | Q: How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in? | 
|  | 86 |  | 
|  | 87 | A: Firstly, think whether you have a bug fix or new "next-like" content. | 
|  | 88 | Then once decided, assuming that you use git, use the prefix flag, i.e. | 
|  | 89 |  | 
|  | 90 | git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next' start..finish | 
|  | 91 |  | 
|  | 92 | Use "net" instead of "net-next" (always lower case) in the above for | 
|  | 93 | bug-fix net content.  If you don't use git, then note the only magic in | 
|  | 94 | the above is just the subject text of the outgoing e-mail, and you can | 
|  | 95 | manually change it yourself with whatever MUA you are comfortable with. | 
|  | 96 |  | 
|  | 97 | Q: I sent a patch and I'm wondering what happened to it.  How can I tell | 
|  | 98 | whether it got merged? | 
|  | 99 |  | 
|  | 100 | A: Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev: | 
|  | 101 |  | 
|  | 102 | http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/ | 
|  | 103 |  | 
|  | 104 | The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with | 
|  | 105 | your patch. | 
|  | 106 |  | 
|  | 107 | Q: The above only says "Under Review".  How can I find out more? | 
|  | 108 |  | 
|  | 109 | A: Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than 48h). | 
|  | 110 | So be patient.  Asking the maintainer for status updates on your | 
|  | 111 | patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to | 
|  | 112 | the bottom of the priority list. | 
|  | 113 |  | 
|  | 114 | Q: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series, should I directly update | 
|  | 115 | patchwork for the previous versions of these patch series? | 
|  | 116 |  | 
|  | 117 | A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave it to | 
|  | 118 | the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current version that | 
|  | 119 | should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer will reply and ask | 
|  | 120 | what should be done. | 
|  | 121 |  | 
|  | 122 | Q: How can I tell what patches are queued up for backporting to the | 
|  | 123 | various stable releases? | 
|  | 124 |  | 
|  | 125 | A: Normally Greg Kroah-Hartman collects stable commits himself, but | 
|  | 126 | for networking, Dave collects up patches he deems critical for the | 
|  | 127 | networking subsystem, and then hands them off to Greg. | 
|  | 128 |  | 
|  | 129 | There is a patchworks queue that you can see here: | 
|  | 130 | http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?state=* | 
|  | 131 |  | 
|  | 132 | It contains the patches which Dave has selected, but not yet handed | 
|  | 133 | off to Greg.  If Greg already has the patch, then it will be here: | 
|  | 134 | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git | 
|  | 135 |  | 
|  | 136 | A quick way to find whether the patch is in this stable-queue is | 
|  | 137 | to simply clone the repo, and then git grep the mainline commit ID, e.g. | 
|  | 138 |  | 
|  | 139 | stable-queue$ git grep -l 284041ef21fdf2e | 
|  | 140 | releases/3.0.84/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch | 
|  | 141 | releases/3.4.51/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch | 
|  | 142 | releases/3.9.8/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch | 
|  | 143 | stable/stable-queue$ | 
|  | 144 |  | 
|  | 145 | Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. | 
|  | 146 | Should I request it via "stable@vger.kernel.org" like the references in | 
|  | 147 | the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say? | 
|  | 148 |  | 
|  | 149 | A: No, not for networking.  Check the stable queues as per above 1st to see | 
|  | 150 | if it is already queued.  If not, then send a mail to netdev, listing | 
|  | 151 | the upstream commit ID and why you think it should be a stable candidate. | 
|  | 152 |  | 
|  | 153 | Before you jump to go do the above, do note that the normal stable rules | 
|  | 154 | in Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst still apply.  So you need to | 
|  | 155 | explicitly indicate why it is a critical fix and exactly what users are | 
|  | 156 | impacted.  In addition, you need to convince yourself that you _really_ | 
|  | 157 | think it has been overlooked, vs. having been considered and rejected. | 
|  | 158 |  | 
|  | 159 | Generally speaking, the longer it has had a chance to "soak" in mainline, | 
|  | 160 | the better the odds that it is an OK candidate for stable.  So scrambling | 
|  | 161 | to request a commit be added the day after it appears should be avoided. | 
|  | 162 |  | 
|  | 163 | Q: I have created a network patch and I think it should be backported to | 
|  | 164 | stable.  Should I add a "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" like the references | 
|  | 165 | in the kernel's Documentation/ directory say? | 
|  | 166 |  | 
|  | 167 | A: No.  See above answer.  In short, if you think it really belongs in | 
|  | 168 | stable, then ensure you write a decent commit log that describes who | 
|  | 169 | gets impacted by the bugfix and how it manifests itself, and when the | 
|  | 170 | bug was introduced.  If you do that properly, then the commit will | 
|  | 171 | get handled appropriately and most likely get put in the patchworks | 
|  | 172 | stable queue if it really warrants it. | 
|  | 173 |  | 
|  | 174 | If you think there is some valid information relating to it being in | 
|  | 175 | stable that does _not_ belong in the commit log, then use the three | 
|  | 176 | dash marker line as described in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst to | 
|  | 177 | temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send. | 
|  | 178 |  | 
|  | 179 | Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases? | 
|  | 180 |  | 
|  | 181 | A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the last | 
|  | 182 | 2 stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable branch maintainer | 
|  | 183 | is supposed to take care of them. If you find any patch is missing from an | 
|  | 184 | earlier stable branch, please notify stable@vger.kernel.org with either a | 
|  | 185 | commit ID or a formal patch backported, and CC Dave and other relevant | 
|  | 186 | networking developers. | 
|  | 187 |  | 
|  | 188 | Q: Someone said that the comment style and coding convention is different | 
|  | 189 | for the networking content.  Is this true? | 
|  | 190 |  | 
|  | 191 | A: Yes, in a largely trivial way.  Instead of this: | 
|  | 192 |  | 
|  | 193 | /* | 
|  | 194 | * foobar blah blah blah | 
|  | 195 | * another line of text | 
|  | 196 | */ | 
|  | 197 |  | 
|  | 198 | it is requested that you make it look like this: | 
|  | 199 |  | 
|  | 200 | /* foobar blah blah blah | 
|  | 201 | * another line of text | 
|  | 202 | */ | 
|  | 203 |  | 
|  | 204 | Q: I am working in existing code that has the former comment style and not the | 
|  | 205 | latter.  Should I submit new code in the former style or the latter? | 
|  | 206 |  | 
|  | 207 | A: Make it the latter style, so that eventually all code in the domain of | 
|  | 208 | netdev is of this format. | 
|  | 209 |  | 
|  | 210 | Q: I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar. | 
|  | 211 | Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list? | 
|  | 212 |  | 
|  | 213 | A: No. The current netdev maintainer has consistently requested that people | 
|  | 214 | use the mailing lists and not reach out directly.  If you aren't OK with | 
|  | 215 | that, then perhaps consider mailing "security@kernel.org" or reading about | 
|  | 216 | http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros | 
|  | 217 | as possible alternative mechanisms. | 
|  | 218 |  | 
|  | 219 | Q: What level of testing is expected before I submit my change? | 
|  | 220 |  | 
|  | 221 | A: If your changes are against net-next, the expectation is that you | 
|  | 222 | have tested by layering your changes on top of net-next.  Ideally you | 
|  | 223 | will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a | 
|  | 224 | minimum, your changes should survive an "allyesconfig" and an | 
|  | 225 | "allmodconfig" build without new warnings or failures. | 
|  | 226 |  | 
|  | 227 | Q: Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd? | 
|  | 228 |  | 
|  | 229 | A: Attention to detail.  Re-read your own work as if you were the | 
|  | 230 | reviewer.  You can start with using checkpatch.pl, perhaps even | 
|  | 231 | with the "--strict" flag.  But do not be mindlessly robotic in | 
|  | 232 | doing so.  If your change is a bug-fix, make sure your commit log | 
|  | 233 | indicates the end-user visible symptom, the underlying reason as | 
|  | 234 | to why it happens, and then if necessary, explain why the fix proposed | 
|  | 235 | is the best way to get things done.   Don't mangle whitespace, and as | 
|  | 236 | is common, don't mis-indent function arguments that span multiple lines. | 
|  | 237 | If it is your first patch, mail it to yourself so you can test apply | 
|  | 238 | it to an unpatched tree to confirm infrastructure didn't mangle it. | 
|  | 239 |  | 
|  | 240 | Finally, go back and read Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst to be | 
|  | 241 | sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. |