netfs: zero the tail of a short DIO/unbuffered readgrafted

The buffered read collector zero-fills the tail of a short read that
stops below the inode's i_size (netfs_clear_unread()), so a read that
races an extending write still returns the expected number of bytes.
The non-buffered collector path does no such thing: it just records
how much was transferred.

Add the same zero-fill for the non-buffered case, gated on
NETFS_SREQ_CLEAR_TAIL: a subreq's source sets that flag when a short
result from it is known to be safe to treat as a hole, as opposed to
NETFS_SREQ_HIT_EOF, which means the read genuinely ran off the end of
the file and should be reported short as-is. Only CLEAR_TAIL should
zero-fill here; a real EOF must stay a real short read.

No source currently sets CLEAR_TAIL on an unbuffered/DIO subrequest,
so this is inert on its own -- a following change teaches cifs to set
it in the one case that needs it.

Fixes: e2d46f2ec332 ("netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item")
Reviewed-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Bharath SM <bharathsm@microsoft.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

1 files changed, 109 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b87ab34de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+========================================
+Linux Kernel Contribution Maturity Model
+========================================
+
+
+Background
+==========
+
+As a part of the 2021 Linux Kernel Maintainers’ Summit, there was a
+`discussion <https://lwn.net/Articles/870581/>`_ about the challenges in
+recruiting kernel maintainers as well as maintainer succession.  Some of
+the conclusions from that discussion included that companies which are a
+part of the Linux Kernel community need to allow engineers to be
+maintainers as part of their job, so they can grow into becoming
+respected leaders and eventually, kernel maintainers.  To support a
+strong talent pipeline, developers should be allowed and encouraged to
+take on upstream contributions such as reviewing other people’s patches,
+refactoring kernel infrastructure, and writing documentation.
+
+To that end, the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board (TAB)
+proposes this Linux Kernel Contribution Maturity Model. These common
+expectations for upstream community engagement aim to increase the
+influence of individual developers, increase the collaboration of
+organizations, and improve the overall health of the Linux Kernel
+ecosystem.
+
+The TAB urges organizations to continuously evaluate their Open Source
+maturity model and commit to improvements to align with this model.  To
+be effective, this evaluation should incorporate feedback from across
+the organization, including management and developers at all seniority
+levels.  In the spirit of Open Source, we encourage organizations to
+publish their evaluations and plans to improve their engagement with the
+upstream community.
+
+Level 0
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are not allowed to contribute patches to the Linux
+  kernel.
+
+
+Level 1
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are allowed to contribute patches to the Linux
+  kernel, either as part of their job responsibilities or on their own
+  time.
+
+Level 2
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are expected to contribute to the Linux Kernel as
+  part of their job responsibilities.
+* Software Engineers will be supported to attend Linux-related
+  conferences as a part of their job.
+* A Software Engineer’s upstream code contributions will be considered
+  in promotion and performance reviews.
+
+Level 3
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are expected to review patches (including patches
+  authored by engineers from other companies) as part of their job
+  responsibilities
+* Contributing presentations or papers to Linux-related or academic
+  conferences (such those organized by the Linux Foundation, Usenix,
+  ACM, etc.), are considered part of an engineer’s work.
+* A Software Engineer’s community contributions will be considered in
+  promotion and performance reviews.
+* Organizations will regularly report metrics of their open source
+  contributions and track these metrics over time.  These metrics may be
+  published only internally within the organization, or at the
+  organization’s discretion, some or all may be published externally.
+  Metrics that are strongly suggested include:
+
+  * The number of upstream kernel contributions by team or organization
+    (e.g., all people reporting up to a manager, director, or VP).
+  * The percentage of kernel developers who have made upstream
+    contributions relative to the total kernel developers in the
+    organization.
+  * The time interval between kernels used in the organization’s servers
+    and/or products, and the publication date of the upstream kernel
+    upon which the internal kernel is based.
+  * The number of out-of-tree commits present in internal kernels.
+
+Level 4
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are encouraged to spend a portion of their work
+  time focused on Upstream Work, which is defined as reviewing patches,
+  serving on program committees, improving core project infrastructure
+  such as writing or maintaining tests, upstream tech debt reduction,
+  writing documentation, etc.
+* Software Engineers are supported in helping to organize Linux-related
+  conferences.
+* Organizations will consider community member feedback in official
+  performance reviews.
+
+Level 5
+=======
+
+* Upstream kernel development is considered a formal job position, with
+  at least a third of the engineer’s time spent doing Upstream Work.
+* Organizations will actively seek out community member feedback as a
+  factor in official performance reviews.
+* Organizations will regularly report internally on the ratio of
+  Upstream Work to work focused on directly pursuing business goals.