c17cb8b55b
Correct spelling typo in Documentation/networking Signed-off-by: Masanari Iida <standby24x7@gmail.com> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
225 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
225 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Information you need to know about netdev
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Q: What is netdev?
|
|
|
|
A: 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/ ) and archives can be found below:
|
|
|
|
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev
|
|
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/
|
|
|
|
Aside from subsystems like that mentioned above, all network-related Linux
|
|
development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on netdev.
|
|
|
|
Q: How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux?
|
|
|
|
A: 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:
|
|
|
|
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git
|
|
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git
|
|
|
|
Q: How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree?
|
|
|
|
A: 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.
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT: Do not send new net-next content to netdev during the
|
|
period during which net-next tree is closed.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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 bugfixes.
|
|
|
|
Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
|
|
|
|
Q: So where are we now in this cycle?
|
|
|
|
A: Load the mainline (Linus) page here:
|
|
|
|
http://git.kernel.org/?p=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.
|
|
|
|
Q: How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in?
|
|
|
|
A: Firstly, think whether you have a bug fix or new "next-like" content.
|
|
Then once decided, assuming that you use git, use the prefix flag, i.e.
|
|
|
|
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. If you don't use git, then note the only magic in
|
|
the above is just the subject text of the outgoing e-mail, and you can
|
|
manually change it yourself with whatever MUA you are comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
Q: I sent a patch and I'm wondering what happened to it. How can I tell
|
|
whether it got merged?
|
|
|
|
A: Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev:
|
|
|
|
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/
|
|
|
|
The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with
|
|
your patch.
|
|
|
|
Q: The above only says "Under Review". How can I find out more?
|
|
|
|
A: Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than 48h).
|
|
So be patient. 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.
|
|
|
|
Q: How can I tell what patches are queued up for backporting to the
|
|
various stable releases?
|
|
|
|
A: Normally Greg Kroah-Hartman collects stable commits himself, but
|
|
for networking, Dave collects up patches he deems critical for the
|
|
networking subsystem, and then hands them off to Greg.
|
|
|
|
There is a patchworks queue that you can see here:
|
|
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?state=*
|
|
|
|
It contains the patches which Dave has selected, but not yet handed
|
|
off to Greg. If Greg already has the patch, then it will be here:
|
|
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
|
|
|
|
A quick way to find whether the patch is in this stable-queue is
|
|
to simply clone the repo, and then git grep the mainline commit ID, e.g.
|
|
|
|
stable-queue$ git grep -l 284041ef21fdf2e
|
|
releases/3.0.84/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
|
|
releases/3.4.51/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
|
|
releases/3.9.8/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
|
|
stable/stable-queue$
|
|
|
|
Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable.
|
|
Should I request it via "stable@vger.kernel.org" like the references in
|
|
the kernel's Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt file say?
|
|
|
|
A: No, not for networking. Check the stable queues as per above 1st to see
|
|
if it is already queued. If not, then send a mail to netdev, listing
|
|
the upstream commit ID and why you think it should be a stable candidate.
|
|
|
|
Before you jump to go do the above, do note that the normal stable rules
|
|
in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt still apply. So you need to
|
|
explicitly indicate why it is a critical fix and exactly what users are
|
|
impacted. In addition, you need to convince yourself that you _really_
|
|
think it has been overlooked, vs. having been considered and rejected.
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking, the longer it has had a chance to "soak" in mainline,
|
|
the better the odds that it is an OK candidate for stable. So scrambling
|
|
to request a commit be added the day after it appears should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
Q: I have created a network patch and I think it should be backported to
|
|
stable. Should I add a "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" like the references
|
|
in the kernel's Documentation/ directory say?
|
|
|
|
A: No. See above answer. In short, if you think it really belongs in
|
|
stable, then ensure you write a decent commit log that describes who
|
|
gets impacted by the bugfix and how it manifests itself, and when the
|
|
bug was introduced. If you do that properly, then the commit will
|
|
get handled appropriately and most likely get put in the patchworks
|
|
stable queue if it really warrants it.
|
|
|
|
If you think there is some valid information relating to it being in
|
|
stable that does _not_ belong in the commit log, then use the three
|
|
dash marker line as described in Documentation/SubmittingPatches to
|
|
temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
|
|
|
|
Q: Someone said that the comment style and coding convention is different
|
|
for the networking content. Is this true?
|
|
|
|
A: 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
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
Q: I am working in existing code that has the former comment style and not the
|
|
latter. Should I submit new code in the former style or the latter?
|
|
|
|
A: Make it the latter style, so that eventually all code in the domain of
|
|
netdev is of this format.
|
|
|
|
Q: I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar.
|
|
Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list?
|
|
|
|
A: 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.
|
|
|
|
Q: What level of testing is expected before I submit my change?
|
|
|
|
A: If your changes are against net-next, the expectation is that you
|
|
have tested by layering your changes on top of net-next. Ideally you
|
|
will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a
|
|
minimum, your changes should survive an "allyesconfig" and an
|
|
"allmodconfig" build without new warnings or failures.
|
|
|
|
Q: Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd?
|
|
|
|
A: 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 Documentation/SubmittingPatches to be
|
|
sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.
|