| .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 |
| |
| .. _netdev-FAQ: |
| |
| ========== |
| netdev FAQ |
| ========== |
| |
| tl;dr |
| ----- |
| |
| - designate your patch to a tree - ``[PATCH net]`` or ``[PATCH net-next]`` |
| - for fixes the ``Fixes:`` tag is required, regardless of the tree |
| - don't post large series (> 15 patches), break them up |
| - don't repost your patches within one 24h period |
| - reverse xmas tree |
| |
| What is netdev? |
| --------------- |
| It is a mailing list for all network-related Linux stuff. This |
| includes anything found under net/ (i.e. core code like IPv6) and |
| drivers/net (i.e. hardware specific drivers) in the Linux source tree. |
| |
| Note that some subsystems (e.g. wireless drivers) which have a high |
| volume of traffic have their own specific mailing lists. |
| |
| The netdev list is managed (like many other Linux mailing lists) through |
| VGER (http://vger.kernel.org/) with archives available at |
| https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ |
| |
| Aside from subsystems like those mentioned above, all network-related |
| Linux development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on |
| netdev. |
| |
| How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux? |
| -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| There are always two trees (git repositories) in play. Both are |
| driven by David Miller, the main network maintainer. There is the |
| ``net`` tree, and the ``net-next`` tree. As you can probably guess from |
| the names, the ``net`` tree is for fixes to existing code already in the |
| mainline tree from Linus, and ``net-next`` is where the new code goes |
| for the future release. You can find the trees here: |
| |
| - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git |
| - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git |
| |
| How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in? |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| To help maintainers and CI bots you should explicitly mark which tree |
| your patch is targeting. Assuming that you use git, use the prefix |
| flag:: |
| |
| git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next' start..finish |
| |
| Use ``net`` instead of ``net-next`` (always lower case) in the above for |
| bug-fix ``net`` content. |
| |
| How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| To understand this, you need to know a bit of background information on |
| the cadence of Linux development. Each new release starts off with a |
| two week "merge window" where the main maintainers feed their new stuff |
| to Linus for merging into the mainline tree. After the two weeks, the |
| merge window is closed, and it is called/tagged ``-rc1``. No new |
| features get mainlined after this -- only fixes to the rc1 content are |
| expected. After roughly a week of collecting fixes to the rc1 content, |
| rc2 is released. This repeats on a roughly weekly basis until rc7 |
| (typically; sometimes rc6 if things are quiet, or rc8 if things are in a |
| state of churn), and a week after the last vX.Y-rcN was done, the |
| official vX.Y is released. |
| |
| Relating that to netdev: At the beginning of the 2-week merge window, |
| the ``net-next`` tree will be closed - no new changes/features. The |
| accumulated new content of the past ~10 weeks will be passed onto |
| mainline/Linus via a pull request for vX.Y -- at the same time, the |
| ``net`` tree will start accumulating fixes for this pulled content |
| relating to vX.Y |
| |
| An announcement indicating when ``net-next`` has been closed is usually |
| sent to netdev, but knowing the above, you can predict that in advance. |
| |
| .. warning:: |
| Do not send new ``net-next`` content to netdev during the |
| period during which ``net-next`` tree is closed. |
| |
| RFC patches sent for review only are obviously welcome at any time |
| (use ``--subject-prefix='RFC net-next'`` with ``git format-patch``). |
| |
| Shortly after the two weeks have passed (and vX.Y-rc1 is released), the |
| tree for ``net-next`` reopens to collect content for the next (vX.Y+1) |
| release. |
| |
| If you aren't subscribed to netdev and/or are simply unsure if |
| ``net-next`` has re-opened yet, simply check the ``net-next`` git |
| repository link above for any new networking-related commits. You may |
| also check the following website for the current status: |
| |
| http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html |
| |
| The ``net`` tree continues to collect fixes for the vX.Y content, and is |
| fed back to Linus at regular (~weekly) intervals. Meaning that the |
| focus for ``net`` is on stabilization and bug fixes. |
| |
| Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over. |
| |
| So where are we now in this cycle? |
| ---------------------------------- |
| |
| Load the mainline (Linus) page here: |
| |
| https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git |
| |
| and note the top of the "tags" section. If it is rc1, it is early in |
| the dev cycle. If it was tagged rc7 a week ago, then a release is |
| probably imminent. If the most recent tag is a final release tag |
| (without an ``-rcN`` suffix) - we are most likely in a merge window |
| and ``net-next`` is closed. |
| |
| How can I tell the status of a patch I've sent? |
| ----------------------------------------------- |
| Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev: |
| |
| https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/ |
| |
| The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with your |
| patch. Patches are indexed by the ``Message-ID`` header of the emails |
| which carried them so if you have trouble finding your patch append |
| the value of ``Message-ID`` to the URL above. |
| |
| How long before my patch is accepted? |
| ------------------------------------- |
| Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than |
| 48h). But be patient, if your patch is active in patchwork (i.e. it's |
| listed on the project's patch list) the chances it was missed are close to zero. |
| Asking the maintainer for status updates on your |
| patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the |
| bottom of the priority list. |
| |
| Should I directly update patchwork state of my own patches? |
| ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| It may be tempting to help the maintainers and update the state of your |
| own patches when you post a new version or spot a bug. Please do not do that. |
| Interfering with the patch status on patchwork will only cause confusion. Leave |
| it to the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current |
| version that should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer |
| will reply and ask what should be done. |
| |
| How do I divide my work into patches? |
| ------------------------------------- |
| |
| Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer. Each patch is read separately |
| and therefore should constitute a comprehensible step towards your stated |
| goal. |
| |
| Avoid sending series longer than 15 patches. Larger series takes longer |
| to review as reviewers will defer looking at it until they find a large |
| chunk of time. A small series can be reviewed in a short time, so Maintainers |
| just do it. As a result, a sequence of smaller series gets merged quicker and |
| with better review coverage. Re-posting large series also increases the mailing |
| list traffic. |
| |
| I made changes to only a few patches in a patch series should I resend only those changed? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| No, please resend the entire patch series and make sure you do number your |
| patches such that it is clear this is the latest and greatest set of patches |
| that can be applied. |
| |
| I have received review feedback, when should I post a revised version of the patches? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Allow at least 24 hours to pass between postings. This will ensure reviewers |
| from all geographical locations have a chance to chime in. Do not wait |
| too long (weeks) between postings either as it will make it harder for reviewers |
| to recall all the context. |
| |
| Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new |
| version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still |
| ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer. |
| |
| I submitted multiple versions of a patch series and it looks like a version other than the last one has been accepted, what should I do? |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that. |
| Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix |
| the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be |
| merged. |
| |
| Are there special rules regarding stable submissions on netdev? |
| --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| While it used to be the case that netdev submissions were not supposed |
| to carry explicit ``CC: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tags that is no longer |
| the case today. Please follow the standard stable rules in |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`, |
| and make sure you include appropriate Fixes tags! |
| |
| Is the comment style convention different for the networking content? |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Yes, in a largely trivial way. Instead of this:: |
| |
| /* |
| * foobar blah blah blah |
| * another line of text |
| */ |
| |
| it is requested that you make it look like this:: |
| |
| /* foobar blah blah blah |
| * another line of text |
| */ |
| |
| What is "reverse xmas tree"? |
| ---------------------------- |
| |
| Netdev has a convention for ordering local variables in functions. |
| Order the variable declaration lines longest to shortest, e.g.:: |
| |
| struct scatterlist *sg; |
| struct sk_buff *skb; |
| int err, i; |
| |
| If there are dependencies between the variables preventing the ordering |
| move the initialization out of line. |
| |
| I am working in existing code which uses non-standard formatting. Which formatting should I use? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Make your code follow the most recent guidelines, so that eventually all code |
| in the domain of netdev is in the preferred format. |
| |
| I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar. Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list? |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| No. The current netdev maintainer has consistently requested that |
| people use the mailing lists and not reach out directly. If you aren't |
| OK with that, then perhaps consider mailing security@kernel.org or |
| reading about http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros |
| as possible alternative mechanisms. |
| |
| What level of testing is expected before I submit my change? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| At the very minimum your changes must survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an |
| ``allmodconfig`` build with ``W=1`` set without new warnings or failures. |
| |
| Ideally you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, |
| and the patch series contains a set of kernel selftest for |
| ``tools/testing/selftests/net`` or using the KUnit framework. |
| |
| You are expected to test your changes on top of the relevant networking |
| tree (``net`` or ``net-next``) and not e.g. a stable tree or ``linux-next``. |
| |
| How do I post corresponding changes to user space components? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------- |
| User space code exercising kernel features should be posted |
| alongside kernel patches. This gives reviewers a chance to see |
| how any new interface is used and how well it works. |
| |
| When user space tools reside in the kernel repo itself all changes |
| should generally come as one series. If series becomes too large |
| or the user space project is not reviewed on netdev include a link |
| to a public repo where user space patches can be seen. |
| |
| In case user space tooling lives in a separate repository but is |
| reviewed on netdev (e.g. patches to ``iproute2`` tools) kernel and |
| user space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted |
| to the mailing list, e.g.:: |
| |
| [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: some feature cover letter |
| └─ [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: some feature prep |
| └─ [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: some feature do it |
| └─ [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftest: net: some feature |
| |
| [PATCH iproute2-next] ip: add support for some feature |
| |
| Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork |
| (as of patchwork 2.2.2). |
| |
| Can I reproduce the checks from patchwork on my local machine? |
| -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Checks in patchwork are mostly simple wrappers around existing kernel |
| scripts, the sources are available at: |
| |
| https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/tree/master/tests |
| |
| Running all the builds and checks locally is a pain, can I post my patches and have the patchwork bot validate them? |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| No, you must ensure that your patches are ready by testing them locally |
| before posting to the mailing list. The patchwork build bot instance |
| gets overloaded very easily and netdev@vger really doesn't need more |
| traffic if we can help it. |
| |
| netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests? |
| ------------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| No, ``netdevsim`` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests. |
| (Please add your tests under ``tools/testing/selftests/``.) |
| |
| We also give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future |
| in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. |
| |
| Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API? |
| ------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Linux kernel has a long standing rule that no API should be added unless |
| it has a real, in-tree user. Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are |
| strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself |
| is **not** considered a use case/user. |
| |
| Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd? |
| -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Attention to detail. Re-read your own work as if you were the |
| reviewer. You can start with using ``checkpatch.pl``, perhaps even with |
| the ``--strict`` flag. But do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so. |
| If your change is a bug fix, make sure your commit log indicates the |
| end-user visible symptom, the underlying reason as to why it happens, |
| and then if necessary, explain why the fix proposed is the best way to |
| get things done. Don't mangle whitespace, and as is common, don't |
| mis-indent function arguments that span multiple lines. If it is your |
| first patch, mail it to yourself so you can test apply it to an |
| unpatched tree to confirm infrastructure didn't mangle it. |
| |
| Finally, go back and read |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` |
| to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. |
| |
| My company uses peer feedback in employee performance reviews. Can I ask netdev maintainers for feedback? |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| Yes, especially if you spend significant amount of time reviewing code |
| and go out of your way to improve shared infrastructure. |
| |
| The feedback must be requested by you, the contributor, and will always |
| be shared with you (even if you request for it to be submitted to your |
| manager). |