From 27600805e62f800bacf990354632eae4e487d34c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yazen Ghannam Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 10:43:25 -0500 Subject: x86/amd_node: Fix PCI device reference counting in amd_smn_init() The local "root" pointer is a temporary variable used during the device search. Therefore, refcount related to the search iterators should be cleaned up after the search is complete. Use the __free() cleanup macro to ensure the refcount is decremented when the temporary pointer goes out of scope. Additionally, increment the refcount when caching a root pointer. This ensures the in-use refcount is separate from the temporary search refcounting. Finally, drop the redundant "root = NULL" before the second search loop. The pci_get_class() iterator always decrements the refcount of its "from" argument, so the first loop can only fall through with "root" already NULL. Fixes: 0a4b61d9c2e4 ("x86/amd_node: Fix AMD root device caching") Closes: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260806160159.230453-1-jason.andryuk%40amd.com Reported-by: Sashiko Assisted-by: LLM Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello (AMD) Cc: Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260903154325.74343-1-yazen.ghannam@amd.com --- .../process/contribution-maturity-model.rst | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst (limited to 'Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst') 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 `_ 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. -- cgit v1.3.1