--- /dev/null
+
+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 stablilization 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 1st 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.
projects / GitHub / moto-9609 / android_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git / commitdiff