Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
大约 2 年 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
提交 f4ef6811 编写于 作者: J Jakub Kicinski 提交者： David S. Miller
浏览文件
操作

docs: netdev: reshuffle sections in prep for de-FAQization 

Subsequent changes will reformat the doc away from FAQ.
To make that more readable perform the pure section moves now.
Reviewed-by: NRandy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: NAndrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: NJakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
上级 0e50d999
隐藏空白更改
内联 并排
Showing with 93 addition and 93 deletion
Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
浏览文件 @ f4ef6811
......@@ -44,17 +44,6 @@ 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
......@@ -127,15 +116,6 @@ 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
......@@ -145,19 +125,14 @@ 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?
How long before my patch is accepted?
-------------------------------------
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.
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.
I made changes to only a few patches in a patch series should I resend only those changed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......@@ -165,17 +140,6 @@ 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.
......@@ -191,6 +155,82 @@ 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!
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
Is the comment style convention different for the networking content?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in a largely trivial way. Instead of this::
......@@ -224,13 +264,16 @@ I am working in existing code which uses non-standard formatting. Which formatti
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.
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.
What level of testing is expected before I submit my change?
------------------------------------------------------------
......@@ -244,32 +287,6 @@ and the patch series contains a set of kernel selftest for
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------
......@@ -303,23 +320,6 @@ 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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......
Markdown is supported
0% 或 .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑！
想要评论请 注册 或