|
| 1 | +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 |
| 2 | +
|
| 3 | +.. _netdev-FAQ: |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +========== |
| 6 | +netdev FAQ |
| 7 | +========== |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +Q: What is netdev? |
| 10 | +------------------ |
| 11 | +A: It is a mailing list for all network-related Linux stuff. This |
| 12 | +includes anything found under net/ (i.e. core code like IPv6) and |
| 13 | +drivers/net (i.e. hardware specific drivers) in the Linux source tree. |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +Note that some subsystems (e.g. wireless drivers) which have a high |
| 16 | +volume of traffic have their own specific mailing lists. |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +The netdev list is managed (like many other Linux mailing lists) through |
| 19 | +VGER (http://vger.kernel.org/) and archives can be found below: |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +- http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev |
| 22 | +- http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/ |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Aside from subsystems like that mentioned above, all network-related |
| 25 | +Linux development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on |
| 26 | +netdev. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +Q: How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux? |
| 29 | +----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 30 | +A: There are always two trees (git repositories) in play. Both are |
| 31 | +driven by David Miller, the main network maintainer. There is the |
| 32 | +``net`` tree, and the ``net-next`` tree. As you can probably guess from |
| 33 | +the names, the ``net`` tree is for fixes to existing code already in the |
| 34 | +mainline tree from Linus, and ``net-next`` is where the new code goes |
| 35 | +for the future release. You can find the trees here: |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git |
| 38 | +- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +Q: How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree? |
| 41 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 42 | +A: To understand this, you need to know a bit of background information on |
| 43 | +the cadence of Linux development. Each new release starts off with a |
| 44 | +two week "merge window" where the main maintainers feed their new stuff |
| 45 | +to Linus for merging into the mainline tree. After the two weeks, the |
| 46 | +merge window is closed, and it is called/tagged ``-rc1``. No new |
| 47 | +features get mainlined after this -- only fixes to the rc1 content are |
| 48 | +expected. After roughly a week of collecting fixes to the rc1 content, |
| 49 | +rc2 is released. This repeats on a roughly weekly basis until rc7 |
| 50 | +(typically; sometimes rc6 if things are quiet, or rc8 if things are in a |
| 51 | +state of churn), and a week after the last vX.Y-rcN was done, the |
| 52 | +official vX.Y is released. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +Relating that to netdev: At the beginning of the 2-week merge window, |
| 55 | +the ``net-next`` tree will be closed - no new changes/features. The |
| 56 | +accumulated new content of the past ~10 weeks will be passed onto |
| 57 | +mainline/Linus via a pull request for vX.Y -- at the same time, the |
| 58 | +``net`` tree will start accumulating fixes for this pulled content |
| 59 | +relating to vX.Y |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +An announcement indicating when ``net-next`` has been closed is usually |
| 62 | +sent to netdev, but knowing the above, you can predict that in advance. |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +IMPORTANT: Do not send new ``net-next`` content to netdev during the |
| 65 | +period during which ``net-next`` tree is closed. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +Shortly after the two weeks have passed (and vX.Y-rc1 is released), the |
| 68 | +tree for ``net-next`` reopens to collect content for the next (vX.Y+1) |
| 69 | +release. |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +If you aren't subscribed to netdev and/or are simply unsure if |
| 72 | +``net-next`` has re-opened yet, simply check the ``net-next`` git |
| 73 | +repository link above for any new networking-related commits. You may |
| 74 | +also check the following website for the current status: |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | + http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +The ``net`` tree continues to collect fixes for the vX.Y content, and is |
| 79 | +fed back to Linus at regular (~weekly) intervals. Meaning that the |
| 80 | +focus for ``net`` is on stabilization and bug fixes. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over. |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +Q: So where are we now in this cycle? |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +Load the mainline (Linus) page here: |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +and note the top of the "tags" section. If it is rc1, it is early in |
| 91 | +the dev cycle. If it was tagged rc7 a week ago, then a release is |
| 92 | +probably imminent. |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +Q: How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in? |
| 95 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 96 | +A: Firstly, think whether you have a bug fix or new "next-like" content. |
| 97 | +Then once decided, assuming that you use git, use the prefix flag, i.e. |
| 98 | +:: |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | + git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next' start..finish |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +Use ``net`` instead of ``net-next`` (always lower case) in the above for |
| 103 | +bug-fix ``net`` content. If you don't use git, then note the only magic |
| 104 | +in the above is just the subject text of the outgoing e-mail, and you |
| 105 | +can manually change it yourself with whatever MUA you are comfortable |
| 106 | +with. |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +Q: I sent a patch and I'm wondering what happened to it? |
| 109 | +-------------------------------------------------------- |
| 110 | +Q: How can I tell whether it got merged? |
| 111 | +A: Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev: |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | + http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/ |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with your |
| 116 | +patch. |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +Q: The above only says "Under Review". How can I find out more? |
| 119 | +---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 120 | +A: Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than |
| 121 | +48h). So be patient. Asking the maintainer for status updates on your |
| 122 | +patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the |
| 123 | +bottom of the priority list. |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +Q: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series |
| 126 | +---------------------------------------------------- |
| 127 | +Q: should I directly update patchwork for the previous versions of these |
| 128 | +patch series? |
| 129 | +A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave |
| 130 | +it to the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current |
| 131 | +version that should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer |
| 132 | +will reply and ask what should be done. |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +Q: How can I tell what patches are queued up for backporting to the various stable releases? |
| 135 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 136 | +A: Normally Greg Kroah-Hartman collects stable commits himself, but for |
| 137 | +networking, Dave collects up patches he deems critical for the |
| 138 | +networking subsystem, and then hands them off to Greg. |
| 139 | + |
| 140 | +There is a patchworks queue that you can see here: |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | + http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?state=* |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +It contains the patches which Dave has selected, but not yet handed off |
| 145 | +to Greg. If Greg already has the patch, then it will be here: |
| 146 | + |
| 147 | + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +A quick way to find whether the patch is in this stable-queue is to |
| 150 | +simply clone the repo, and then git grep the mainline commit ID, e.g. |
| 151 | +:: |
| 152 | + |
| 153 | + stable-queue$ git grep -l 284041ef21fdf2e |
| 154 | + releases/3.0.84/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch |
| 155 | + releases/3.4.51/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch |
| 156 | + releases/3.9.8/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch |
| 157 | + stable/stable-queue$ |
| 158 | + |
| 159 | +Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. |
| 160 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 161 | +Q: Should I request it via [email protected] like the references in |
| 162 | +the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say? |
| 163 | +A: No, not for networking. Check the stable queues as per above first |
| 164 | +to see if it is already queued. If not, then send a mail to netdev, |
| 165 | +listing the upstream commit ID and why you think it should be a stable |
| 166 | +candidate. |
| 167 | + |
| 168 | +Before you jump to go do the above, do note that the normal stable rules |
| 169 | +in :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` |
| 170 | +still apply. So you need to explicitly indicate why it is a critical |
| 171 | +fix and exactly what users are impacted. In addition, you need to |
| 172 | +convince yourself that you *really* think it has been overlooked, |
| 173 | +vs. having been considered and rejected. |
| 174 | + |
| 175 | +Generally speaking, the longer it has had a chance to "soak" in |
| 176 | +mainline, the better the odds that it is an OK candidate for stable. So |
| 177 | +scrambling to request a commit be added the day after it appears should |
| 178 | +be avoided. |
| 179 | + |
| 180 | +Q: I have created a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable. |
| 181 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 182 | +Q: Should I add a Cc: [email protected] like the references in the |
| 183 | +kernel's Documentation/ directory say? |
| 184 | +A: No. See above answer. In short, if you think it really belongs in |
| 185 | +stable, then ensure you write a decent commit log that describes who |
| 186 | +gets impacted by the bug fix and how it manifests itself, and when the |
| 187 | +bug was introduced. If you do that properly, then the commit will get |
| 188 | +handled appropriately and most likely get put in the patchworks stable |
| 189 | +queue if it really warrants it. |
| 190 | + |
| 191 | +If you think there is some valid information relating to it being in |
| 192 | +stable that does *not* belong in the commit log, then use the three dash |
| 193 | +marker line as described in |
| 194 | +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <the_canonical_patch_format>` |
| 195 | +to temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send. |
| 196 | + |
| 197 | +Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases? |
| 198 | +------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 199 | +A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the |
| 200 | +last two stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable |
| 201 | +branch maintainer is supposed to take care of them. If you find any |
| 202 | +patch is missing from an earlier stable branch, please notify |
| 203 | +[email protected] with either a commit ID or a formal patch |
| 204 | +backported, and CC Dave and other relevant networking developers. |
| 205 | + |
| 206 | +Q: Is the comment style convention different for the networking content? |
| 207 | +------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 208 | +A: Yes, in a largely trivial way. Instead of this:: |
| 209 | + |
| 210 | + /* |
| 211 | + * foobar blah blah blah |
| 212 | + * another line of text |
| 213 | + */ |
| 214 | + |
| 215 | +it is requested that you make it look like this:: |
| 216 | + |
| 217 | + /* foobar blah blah blah |
| 218 | + * another line of text |
| 219 | + */ |
| 220 | + |
| 221 | +Q: I am working in existing code that has the former comment style and not the latter. |
| 222 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 223 | +Q: Should I submit new code in the former style or the latter? |
| 224 | +A: Make it the latter style, so that eventually all code in the domain |
| 225 | +of netdev is of this format. |
| 226 | + |
| 227 | +Q: I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar. |
| 228 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 229 | +Q: Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list?** |
| 230 | +A: No. The current netdev maintainer has consistently requested that |
| 231 | +people use the mailing lists and not reach out directly. If you aren't |
| 232 | +OK with that, then perhaps consider mailing [email protected] or |
| 233 | +reading about http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros |
| 234 | +as possible alternative mechanisms. |
| 235 | + |
| 236 | +Q: What level of testing is expected before I submit my change? |
| 237 | +--------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 238 | +A: If your changes are against ``net-next``, the expectation is that you |
| 239 | +have tested by layering your changes on top of ``net-next``. Ideally |
| 240 | +you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a |
| 241 | +minimum, your changes should survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an |
| 242 | +``allmodconfig`` build without new warnings or failures. |
| 243 | + |
| 244 | +Q: Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd? |
| 245 | +----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 246 | +A: Attention to detail. Re-read your own work as if you were the |
| 247 | +reviewer. You can start with using ``checkpatch.pl``, perhaps even with |
| 248 | +the ``--strict`` flag. But do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so. |
| 249 | +If your change is a bug fix, make sure your commit log indicates the |
| 250 | +end-user visible symptom, the underlying reason as to why it happens, |
| 251 | +and then if necessary, explain why the fix proposed is the best way to |
| 252 | +get things done. Don't mangle whitespace, and as is common, don't |
| 253 | +mis-indent function arguments that span multiple lines. If it is your |
| 254 | +first patch, mail it to yourself so you can test apply it to an |
| 255 | +unpatched tree to confirm infrastructure didn't mangle it. |
| 256 | + |
| 257 | +Finally, go back and read |
| 258 | +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` |
| 259 | +to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. |
0 commit comments