netdev - Re: [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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 17:54:24 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        andrea.mayer@...roma2.it, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post
 co-dependent series

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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

That's a good suggestion for iproute2 vs kernel patches
that actually live in separate repos.
When kernel and user components (like in often happens in bpf world)
happen to be in one repo it's better to keep them as a single patch set.
So it would be good to clarify in the above paragraph.

> +
> +Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork
> +(as of patchwork 2.2.2).

Right. Not as much patchwork, but kernel.org special email processing
pipeline that has an auto-delegation feature.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/infra/patchwork/procmail.git/tree/netdevbpf.rc
Not sure whether doc needs to go to this level of details.