netdev - [PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post co-dependent series

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20201124235755.159903-1-kuba@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:57:54 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, brouer@...hat.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        andrea.mayer@...roma2.it, dsahern@...il.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post co-dependent series

Make an explicit suggestion how to post user space side of kernel
patches to avoid reposts when patchwork groups the wrong patches.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
---
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
index 21537766be4d..553eda8da9c7 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -254,6 +254,26 @@ 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: How do I post corresponding changes to user space components?
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+A: Kernel patches often come with support in user space tooling
+(e.g. `iproute2`). It's best to post both kernel and user space
+code at the same time, so that reviewers have a chance to see how
+user space side looks when reviewing kernel code.
+If user space tooling lives in a separate repository 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).
+
 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
-- 
2.26.2