forked from torvalds/linux
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to restructured text
Preferred kernel docs format is now restructured text. Convert netdev-FAQ.txt to restructured text. - Add SPDX license identifier. - Change file heading 'Information you need to know about netdev' to 'netdev FAQ' to better suit displayed index (in HTML). - Change question/answer layout to suit rst. Copy format in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst - Fix indentation of code snippets - If multiple consecutive URLs appear put them in a list (to maintain whitespace). - Use uniform spelling of 'bug fix' throughout document (not bugfix or bug-fix). - Add double back ticks to 'net' and 'net-next' when referring to the trees. - Use rst references for Documentation/ links. - Add rst label 'netdev-FAQ' for referencing by other docs files. - Remove stale entry from Documentation/networking/00-INDEX Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information
Showing
4 changed files
with
260 additions
and
246 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Contents: | |
.. toctree:: | ||
:maxdepth: 2 | ||
|
||
netdev-FAQ | ||
af_xdp | ||
batman-adv | ||
can | ||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@ | ||
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 | ||
.. _netdev-FAQ: | ||
|
||
========== | ||
netdev FAQ | ||
========== | ||
|
||
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: | ||
|
||
- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git | ||
- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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. 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. | ||
|
||
Q: 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. | ||
|
||
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? | ||
-------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Q: 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: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series | ||
---------------------------------------------------- | ||
Q: should I directly update patchwork for the previous versions of these | ||
patch series? | ||
A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, 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. | ||
|
||
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: | ||
|
||
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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. | ||
----------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Q: Should I request it via [email protected] like the references in | ||
the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say? | ||
A: No, not for networking. Check the stable queues as per above first | ||
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 :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` | ||
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. | ||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Q: Should I add a Cc: [email protected] 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 bug fix 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 | ||
:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <the_canonical_patch_format>` | ||
to temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send. | ||
|
||
Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases? | ||
------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the | ||
last two stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable | ||
branch maintainer is supposed to take care of them. If you find any | ||
patch is missing from an earlier stable branch, please notify | ||
[email protected] with either a commit ID or a formal patch | ||
backported, and CC Dave and other relevant networking developers. | ||
|
||
Q: Is the comment style convention different for the networking content? | ||
------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
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. | ||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Q: 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. | ||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
Q: 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 [email protected] 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 | ||
:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` | ||
to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. |
Oops, something went wrong.