From 22098763a10d9c1340827fcf6edab66f153b27f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 12:27:00 -0700 Subject: Merge tag 'trace-v7.3-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace Pull tracing fixes from Steven Rostedt: - Don't destroy user event fields when removal fails User event fields are destroyed before the event is removed from visibility. But that can fail leaving the still visible event with no fields. Move the destroying of the fields to after the event is successfully removed from visibility. - Initialize function graph state is fork before calling copy_exec_state() For non-CLONE_VM forks, copy_exec_state() allocates a new task_exec_state. If that allocation fails, ftrace_graph_exit_task() will free the tasks ret_stack pointer. Since that pointer is still using the parent's ret_stack, it mistakenly frees the parent's pointer too. Call ftrace_graph_init() on the task first which will NULL out the new tasks's ret_stack and if the copy fails, it will not free anything. - Remove FGRAPH_MAX_INDEX The macro FGRAPH_MAX_INDEX was added but never used. Remove it. - Save ent_size in function graph printing of nested functions The function graph tracer needs to look at the next event to see if the next event is the return of the current function entry. If it is, it prints a single line: ktime_get(); Otherwise it prints it like a nested function: tick_nohz_irq_exit() { ktime_get(); kcpustat_irq_exit(); } In order to look at the next event, it must save the current event so that it has the information to print from it. It saves the event in the iterator descriptor called "ent". What it doesn't save is the ent_size of the event which is now used to know if the function graph arguments are to be printed. The peek doesn't save the size so the size used happens to be that of the size of the last event that was seen. Save the entry event size in the iterator descriptor so that the correct size is used. - Fix several errors with freeing data in the histogram code The histogram code had a lot of leaked or or incorrect accounting when failures happen. Correct them. - Fix histogram regression of .percent and .graph modifiers Up until 6.3 histogram values could have "percent" or "graph" modifiers that changed how they were printed. But a change that added restricting histograms values from being strings, stack traces and other modifiers inadvertently prevented them from using the percent and graph modifiers, which were legal use cases for values. Put back the percent and graph modifiers. - Fix various typos in the comments - Set the trace_clock before initializing a histogram with clock argument The histogram API allows the user to specific which trace clock to use via a "clock=" string. The histogram is set up first before the clock is checked. If the passed in clock is not valid, it exits without fully fixing up the histogram leaving it on the list and a use-after-free can trigger. Update the clock argument first and if it fails then exit gracefully before the histogram trigger is placed on any lists. - Restore :mod: trailer after parsing in ftrace_set_clr_event The function ftrace_set_clr_event() modifies the parse string and needs to put it back to what was passed in. It searches for ":mod:" via a strsep() but fails to put back the first ':' in the string. Add back the ':' in the passed in string. - Take trace_array reference when opening a tracer options file The options files are dynamically created and some tracers add their own options. When a tracer adds their own list of options, the trace_array holding them has an array to hold the list of options for each tracer. This array increases in size via a krealloc(), and the new entry gets a newly allocated array to hold the options of the new tracer being added. The element in each entry of the tracer's option array holds a pointer back to the trace_array, a pointer to the tracer it is associated to, a pointer to the flags of the option. The issue is that these arrays are freed when the trace_array is freed when its instance it represents is removed from the instances directory. There's a race that an open of one of these options files can happen when the instance is being removed. Add a new helper function to be called by the open function of the options file to iterate all existing trace_arrays under a lock and find the one that has the given option element in one of it's tracer arrays. If found, then update the associated trace_array's reference counter to keep it from being freed. If not found, have the open call return -ENODEV. - Disable interrupts when acquiring the lock in rb_wake_up_waiters() The function rb_wake_up_waiters() assumes it will be called in interrupt context and does not disable irqs when taking cpu_buffer->reader_lock, which can be called in hard interrupt context. The issue is in PREEMPT_RT, this function is called in thread context leaving this lock open to a deadlock. Take the lock with interrupts disabled. - Use rcu_assign_pointer() for tmp_ops filter hash The tmp_ops used in update_ftrace_direct_mod() assigns its filter_hash field directly, but that field is annotated as __rcu and sparse complains. Assign it with rcu_assign_pointer() - Fix use-after-free in enable_trigger_private_data_free() The trace_event_call is accessed through the event_trigger_data's trace_event_file pointer to put the trace_event_call on freeing. The issue is that the trace_event_file data may have been freed already causing a use-after-free. Add a field to the event_trigger_data that points directly to the trace_event_call so that it can decrement its reference directly without needing to go through the trace_event_file. - Fix accounting of buffer data remote headers trace_buffer_desc_size() and trace_remote_alloc_buffer() undercount the number of pages is needed for the asked for size as it doesn't take into account the meta data on each page. Add a helper function to do the calculation properly and use that in these functions. - Catch nr_page_va overflow in ring_buffer_desc sizing The number of pages per remote ring buffer is capped by ring_buffer_desc::nr_page_va (32 bits). A buffer_size large enough to overflow that field would silently allocate a descriptor smaller than what was asked for. - Do not resize the subbuf order if any per_cpu buffer is disabled The mmapping of ring buffers disables resizing the subbuffers, but it is done per-cpu whereas the subbuf size change is done for all the per_cpu buffers under the buffer->mutex. It could change the size of some while the mapping is happening on others. Have the resize of the subbuf order check all the per_cpu buffers under the lock to see if any of them is disabled before starting and causing an inconsistency between buffers that are being mapped. * tag 'trace-v7.3-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace: (25 commits) ring-buffer: Check resize_disabled before publishing the new subbuf order tracing/remotes: Catch nr_page_va overflow in ring_buffer_desc sizing tracing/remotes: Account for ring buffer page header in size calculation tracing: Don't dereference trace_event_file in deferred trigger free ftrace: Use rcu_assign_pointer() for tmp_ops filter hash ring-buffer: Acquire the lock with irqsave in rb_wake_up_waiters() tracing: Take trace_array reference when opening a tracer options file tracing: Fix ring_buffer_read_page_size() kernel-doc tracing: Restore :mod: trailer after parsing in ftrace_set_clr_event() tracing: Fix memory corruption from a "STACKTRACE" histogram key tracing: Fix memory corruption from the histogram stacktrace modifier tracing: Undo the registration when enabling the histogram trigger fails tracing: Take the reference before publishing the named histogram trigger tracing: Set the trace clock before registering the histogram trigger tracing: Fix typo "preceeded" in comment tracing: Fix typo "availabe" in comment tracing: Let histogram values keep the percent and graph modifiers tracing: Keep the entry count when the histogram stats allocation fails tracing: Free histogram the field rejected for a bad modifier tracing: Free histogram the var ref when its initialization fails ... --- Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 592 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 592 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst (limited to 'Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1739d9f85 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst @@ -0,0 +1,592 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +.. _netdev-FAQ: + +============================= +Networking subsystem (netdev) +============================= + +tl;dr +----- + + - designate your patch to a tree - ``[PATCH net]`` or ``[PATCH net-next]`` + - for fixes the ``Fixes:`` tag is required, regardless of the tree + - don't post large series (> 15 patches), break them up + - don't repost your patches within one 24h period + - reverse xmas tree + +netdev +------ + +netdev 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 and trees. + +Like many other Linux mailing lists, the netdev list is hosted at +kernel.org with archives available at https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/. + +Aside from subsystems like those mentioned above, all network-related +Linux development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on +netdev. + +Development cycle +----------------- + +Here is 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. + +To find out where we are now in the cycle - load the mainline (Linus) +page here: + + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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. If the most recent tag is a final release tag +(without an ``-rcN`` suffix) - we are most likely in a merge window +and ``net-next`` is closed. + +git trees and patch flow +------------------------ + +There are two networking 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: + +- 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 + +Relating that to kernel development: 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. + +.. warning:: + Do not send new ``net-next`` content to netdev during the + period during which ``net-next`` tree is closed. + +RFC patches sent for review only are obviously welcome at any time +(use ``--subject-prefix='RFC net-next'`` with ``git format-patch``). + +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. You may +also check the following website for the current status: + + https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/net-next.html + +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 stabilization and bug fixes. + +Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over. + +netdev patch review +------------------- + +.. _patch_status: + +Patch status +~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Status of a patch can be checked by looking at the main patchwork +queue for netdev: + + https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/ + +The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with your +patch: + +================== ============================================================= +Patch state Description +================== ============================================================= +New, Under review pending review, patch is in the maintainer’s queue for + review; the two states are used interchangeably (depending on + the exact co-maintainer handling patchwork at the time) +Accepted patch was applied to the appropriate networking tree, this is + usually set automatically by the pw-bot +Needs ACK waiting for an ack from an area expert or testing +Changes requested patch has not passed the review, new revision is expected + with appropriate code and commit message changes +Rejected patch has been rejected and new revision is not expected +Not applicable patch is expected to be applied outside of the networking + subsystem +Awaiting upstream patch should be reviewed and handled by appropriate + sub-maintainer, who will send it on to the networking trees; + patches set to ``Awaiting upstream`` in netdev's patchwork + will usually remain in this state, whether the sub-maintainer + requested changes, accepted or rejected the patch +Deferred patch needs to be reposted later, usually due to dependency + or because it was posted for a closed tree +Superseded new version of the patch was posted, usually set by the + pw-bot +RFC not to be applied, usually not in maintainer’s review queue, + pw-bot can automatically set patches to this state based + on subject tags +================== ============================================================= + +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. + +Updating patch status +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Contributors and reviewers do not have the permissions to update patch +state directly in patchwork. Patchwork doesn't expose much information +about the history of the state of patches, therefore having multiple +people update the state leads to confusion. + +Instead of delegating patchwork permissions netdev uses a simple mail +bot which looks for special commands/lines within the emails sent to +the mailing list. For example to mark a series as Changes Requested +one needs to send the following line anywhere in the email thread:: + + pw-bot: changes-requested + +As a result the bot will set the entire series to Changes Requested. +This may be useful when author discovers a bug in their own series +and wants to prevent it from getting applied. + +The use of the bot is entirely optional, if in doubt ignore its existence +completely. Maintainers will classify and update the state of the patches +themselves. No email should ever be sent to the list with the main purpose +of communicating with the bot, the bot commands should be seen as metadata. + +The use of the bot is restricted to authors of the patches (the ``From:`` +header on patch submission and command must match!), maintainers of +the modified code according to the MAINTAINERS file (again, ``From:`` +must match the MAINTAINERS entry) and a handful of senior reviewers. + +Bot records its activity here: + + https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/pw-bot.html + +Review timelines +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +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. + +The high volume of development on netdev makes reviewers move on +from discussions relatively quickly. New comments and replies +are very unlikely to arrive after a week of silence. If a patch +is no longer active in patchwork and the thread went idle for more +than a week - clarify the next steps and/or post the next version. + +For RFC postings specifically, if nobody responded in a week - reviewers +either missed the posting or have no strong opinions. If the code is ready, +repost as a PATCH. + +There are 2 services actively providing LLM-generated review on posted patches: + +- https://sashiko.dev/ +- https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/ + +both use the Sashiko infrastructure on top of different models. Reviews are +available after 24h. Patch authors are expected to proactively look into the +AI-generated reviews and handle such feedback as any other kind of review: +either debate it or address it. In both cases a reply on the mailing list is +expected. + +Authors are strongly encouraged to run LLM reviews on the posted patches in +advance of the actual post. Large series triggering a significant amount of +AI-generated feedback will likely get little attention from maintainers and +reviewers. + +Emails saying just "ping" or "bump" are considered rude. If you can't figure +out the status of the patch from patchwork or where the discussion has +landed - describe your best guess and ask if it's correct. For example:: + + I don't understand what the next steps are. Person X seems to be unhappy + with A, should I do B and repost the patches? + +Don't reach out to maintainers or reviewers via private email and/or other +communications channels: all the discussion must remain public, and +requesting special attention is unfair towards the community, at best. + +.. _Changes requested: + +Changes requested +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Patches :ref:`marked` as ``Changes Requested`` need +to be revised. The new version should come with a change log, +preferably including links to previous postings, for example:: + + [PATCH net-next v3] net: make cows go moo + + Even users who don't drink milk appreciate hearing the cows go "moo". + + The amount of mooing will depend on packet rate so should match + the diurnal cycle quite well. + + Signed-off-by: Joe Defarmer + --- + v3: + - add a note about time-of-day mooing fluctuation to the commit message + v2: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/123themessageid@barn.org/ + - fix missing argument in kernel doc for netif_is_bovine() + - fix memory leak in netdev_register_cow() + v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/456getstheclicks@barn.org/ + +The commit message should be revised to answer any questions reviewers +had to ask in previous discussions. Occasionally the update of +the commit message will be the only change in the new version. + +Partial resends +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Please always 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. Do not try to resend just the patches which changed. + +Handling misapplied patches +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Occasionally a patch series gets applied before receiving critical feedback, +or the wrong version of a series gets applied. + +Making the patch disappear once it is pushed out is not possible, the commit +history in netdev trees is immutable. +Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix +the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be +merged. + +In cases where full revert is needed the revert has to be submitted +as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical +problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort, +when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred. + +Stable tree +~~~~~~~~~~~ + +While it used to be the case that netdev submissions were not supposed +to carry explicit ``CC: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tags that is no longer +the case today. Please follow the standard stable rules in +:ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst `, +and make sure you include appropriate Fixes tags! + +Security fixes +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Do not email netdev maintainers directly if you think you discovered +a bug that might have possible security implications. +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. + + +Co-posting 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). + +Co-posting selftests +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Selftests should be part of the same series as the code changes. +Specifically for fixes both code change and related test should go into +the same tree (the tests may lack a Fixes tag, which is expected). +Mixing code changes and test changes in a single commit is discouraged. + +Preparing changes +----------------- + +Attention to detail is important. 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 ` +to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. + +Indicating target tree +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +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. + +Dividing 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. + +Limit patches outstanding on mailing list +----------------------------------------- + +Avoid having more than 15 patches, across all series, outstanding for +review on the mailing list for a single tree. In other words, a maximum of +15 patches under review on net, and a maximum of 15 patches under review on +net-next. + +This limit is intended to focus developer effort on testing patches before +upstream review. Aiding the quality of upstream submissions, and easing the +load on reviewers. + +.. _rcs: + +Local variable ordering ("reverse xmas tree", "RCS") +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Netdev has a convention for ordering local variables in functions. +Order the variable declaration lines longest to shortest, e.g.:: + + struct scatterlist *sg; + struct sk_buff *skb; + int err, i; + +If there are dependencies between the variables preventing the ordering +move the initialization out of line. + +Format precedence +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +When working in existing code which uses nonstandard formatting make +your code follow the most recent guidelines, so that eventually all code +in the domain of netdev is in the preferred format. + +Using device-managed and cleanup.h constructs +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all "auto-cleanup" APIs, +including even ``devm_`` helpers, historically. They are not the preferred +style of implementation, merely an acceptable one. + +Use of ``guard()`` is discouraged within any function longer than 20 lines, +``scoped_guard()`` is considered more readable. Using normal lock/unlock is +still (weakly) preferred. + +Low level cleanup constructs (such as ``__free()``) can be used when building +APIs and helpers, especially scoped iterators. However, direct use of +``__free()`` within networking core and drivers is discouraged. +Similar guidance applies to declaring variables mid-function. + +Clean-up patches +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Netdev discourages patches which perform simple clean-ups, which are not in +the context of other work. For example: + +* Addressing ``checkpatch.pl``, and other trivial coding style warnings +* Addressing :ref:`Local variable ordering` issues +* Conversions to device-managed APIs (``devm_`` helpers) + +This is because it is felt that the churn that such changes produce comes +at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups. + +Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged. + +Resending after review +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +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. + +The new version of patches should be posted as a separate thread, +not as a reply to the previous posting. Change log should include a link +to the previous posting (see :ref:`Changes requested`). + +Testing +------- + +Expected level of testing +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +At the very minimum your changes must survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an +``allmodconfig`` build with ``W=1`` set without new warnings or failures. + +Ideally you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, +and the patch series contains a set of kernel selftest for +``tools/testing/selftests/net`` or using the KUnit framework. + +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``. + +patchwork checks +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Checks in patchwork are mostly simple wrappers around existing kernel +scripts, the sources are available at: + +https://github.com/linux-netdev/nipa/tree/master/tests + +**Do not** post your patches just to run them through the checks. +You must ensure that your patches are ready by testing them locally +before posting to the mailing list. The patchwork build bot instance +gets overloaded very easily and netdev@vger really doesn't need more +traffic if we can help it. + +netdevsim +~~~~~~~~~ + +``netdevsim`` is a test driver which can be used to exercise driver +configuration APIs without requiring capable hardware. +Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are encouraged when +adding new APIs with complex logic in the stack. The tests should +be written so that they can run both against ``netdevsim`` and a real +device (see ``tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/README.rst``). +``netdevsim``-only tests should focus on testing corner cases +and failure paths in the core which are hard to exercise with a real driver. + +``netdevsim`` in itself is **not** considered +a use case/user. You must also implement the new APIs in a real driver. + +We give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future +in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. + +``netdevsim`` is reserved for use by upstream tests only, so any +new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under +``tools/testing/selftests/``. + +Supported status for drivers +---------------------------- + +.. note: The following requirements apply only to Ethernet NIC drivers. + +Netdev defines additional requirements for drivers which want to acquire +the ``Supported`` status in the MAINTAINERS file. ``Supported`` drivers must +be running all upstream driver tests and reporting the results twice a day. +Drivers which do not comply with this requirement should use the ``Maintained`` +status. There is currently no difference in how ``Supported`` and ``Maintained`` +drivers are treated upstream. + +The exact rules a driver must follow to acquire the ``Supported`` status: + +1. Must run all tests under ``drivers/net`` and ``drivers/net/hw`` targets + of Linux selftests. Running and reporting private / internal tests is + also welcome, but upstream tests are a must. + +2. The minimum run frequency is once every 12 hours. Must test the + designated branch from the selected branch feed. Note that branches + are auto-constructed and exposed to intentional malicious patch posting, + so the test systems must be isolated. + +3. Drivers supporting multiple generations of devices must test at + least one device from each generation. A testbed manifest (exact + format TBD) should describe the device models tested. + +4. The tests must run reliably, if multiple branches are skipped or tests + are failing due to execution environment problems the ``Supported`` + status will be withdrawn. + +5. Test failures due to bugs either in the driver or the test itself, + or lack of support for the feature the test is targeting are + *not* a basis for losing the ``Supported`` status. + +netdev CI will maintain an official page of supported devices, listing their +recent test results. + +The driver maintainer may arrange for someone else to run the test, +there is no requirement for the person listed as maintainer (or their +employer) to be responsible for running the tests. Collaboration between +vendors, hosting GH CI, other repos under linux-netdev, etc. is most welcome. + +See https://github.com/linux-netdev/nipa/wiki for more information about +netdev CI. Feel free to reach out to maintainers or the list with any questions. + +Reviewer guidance +----------------- + +Reviewing other people's patches on the list is highly encouraged, +regardless of the level of expertise. For general guidance and +helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. + +It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level +of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. A Reviewed-by tag +is understood to mean "I have reviewed this code to the best of my ability" +rather than "I can attest this code is correct". + +Reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth review of submissions +and not focus exclusively on process issues, trivial or subjective +matters like code formatting, tags etc. + +Testimonials / feedback +----------------------- + +Some companies use peer feedback in employee performance reviews. +Please feel free to request feedback from netdev maintainers, +especially if you spend significant amount of time reviewing code +and go out of your way to improve shared infrastructure. + +The feedback must be requested by you, the contributor, and will always +be shared with you (even if you request for it to be submitted to your +manager). -- cgit v1.3.1