1 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
11 It is a mailing list for all network-related Linux stuff. This
12 includes anything found under net/ (i.e. core code like IPv6) and
13 drivers/net (i.e. hardware specific drivers) in the Linux source tree.
15 Note that some subsystems (e.g. wireless drivers) which have a high
16 volume of traffic have their own specific mailing lists.
18 The netdev list is managed (like many other Linux mailing lists) through
19 VGER (http://vger.kernel.org/) and archives can be found below:
21 - http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev
22 - http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/
24 Aside from subsystems like that mentioned above, all network-related
25 Linux development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on
28 How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux?
29 --------------------------------------------------------------
30 There are always two trees (git repositories) in play. Both are
31 driven by David Miller, the main network maintainer. There is the
32 ``net`` tree, and the ``net-next`` tree. As you can probably guess from
33 the names, the ``net`` tree is for fixes to existing code already in the
34 mainline tree from Linus, and ``net-next`` is where the new code goes
35 for the future release. You can find the trees here:
37 - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git
38 - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git
40 How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree?
41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 To understand this, you need to know a bit of background information on
43 the cadence of Linux development. Each new release starts off with a
44 two week "merge window" where the main maintainers feed their new stuff
45 to Linus for merging into the mainline tree. After the two weeks, the
46 merge window is closed, and it is called/tagged ``-rc1``. No new
47 features get mainlined after this -- only fixes to the rc1 content are
48 expected. After roughly a week of collecting fixes to the rc1 content,
49 rc2 is released. This repeats on a roughly weekly basis until rc7
50 (typically; sometimes rc6 if things are quiet, or rc8 if things are in a
51 state of churn), and a week after the last vX.Y-rcN was done, the
52 official vX.Y is released.
54 Relating that to netdev: At the beginning of the 2-week merge window,
55 the ``net-next`` tree will be closed - no new changes/features. The
56 accumulated new content of the past ~10 weeks will be passed onto
57 mainline/Linus via a pull request for vX.Y -- at the same time, the
58 ``net`` tree will start accumulating fixes for this pulled content
61 An announcement indicating when ``net-next`` has been closed is usually
62 sent to netdev, but knowing the above, you can predict that in advance.
64 IMPORTANT: Do not send new ``net-next`` content to netdev during the
65 period during which ``net-next`` tree is closed.
67 Shortly after the two weeks have passed (and vX.Y-rc1 is released), the
68 tree for ``net-next`` reopens to collect content for the next (vX.Y+1)
71 If you aren't subscribed to netdev and/or are simply unsure if
72 ``net-next`` has re-opened yet, simply check the ``net-next`` git
73 repository link above for any new networking-related commits. You may
74 also check the following website for the current status:
76 http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
78 The ``net`` tree continues to collect fixes for the vX.Y content, and is
79 fed back to Linus at regular (~weekly) intervals. Meaning that the
80 focus for ``net`` is on stabilization and bug fixes.
82 Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
84 So where are we now in this cycle?
85 ----------------------------------
87 Load the mainline (Linus) page here:
89 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
91 and note the top of the "tags" section. If it is rc1, it is early in
92 the dev cycle. If it was tagged rc7 a week ago, then a release is
95 How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in?
96 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
97 Firstly, think whether you have a bug fix or new "next-like" content.
98 Then once decided, assuming that you use git, use the prefix flag, i.e.
101 git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next' start..finish
103 Use ``net`` instead of ``net-next`` (always lower case) in the above for
104 bug-fix ``net`` content. If you don't use git, then note the only magic
105 in the above is just the subject text of the outgoing e-mail, and you
106 can manually change it yourself with whatever MUA you are comfortable
109 I sent a patch and I'm wondering what happened to it - how can I tell whether it got merged?
110 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111 Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev:
113 https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/
115 The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with your
118 The above only says "Under Review". How can I find out more?
119 -------------------------------------------------------------
120 Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than
121 48h). So be patient. Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
122 patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
123 bottom of the priority list.
125 I submitted multiple versions of the patch series. Should I directly update patchwork for the previous versions of these patch series?
126 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127 No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave
128 it to the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current
129 version that should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer
130 will reply and ask what should be done.
132 I made changes to only a few patches in a patch series should I resend only those changed?
133 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
134 No, please resend the entire patch series and make sure you do number your
135 patches such that it is clear this is the latest and greatest set of patches
138 I submitted multiple versions of a patch series and it looks like a version other than the last one has been accepted, what should I do?
139 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
140 There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that.
141 Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix
142 the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be
145 Are there special rules regarding stable submissions on netdev?
146 ---------------------------------------------------------------
147 While it used to be the case that netdev submissions were not supposed
148 to carry explicit ``CC: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tags that is no longer
149 the case today. Please follow the standard stable rules in
150 :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`,
151 and make sure you include appropriate Fixes tags!
153 Is the comment style convention different for the networking content?
154 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
155 Yes, in a largely trivial way. Instead of this::
158 * foobar blah blah blah
159 * another line of text
162 it is requested that you make it look like this::
164 /* foobar blah blah blah
165 * another line of text
168 I am working in existing code that has the former comment style and not the latter. Should I submit new code in the former style or the latter?
169 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170 Make it the latter style, so that eventually all code in the domain
171 of netdev is of this format.
173 I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar. Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list?
174 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
175 No. The current netdev maintainer has consistently requested that
176 people use the mailing lists and not reach out directly. If you aren't
177 OK with that, then perhaps consider mailing security@kernel.org or
178 reading about http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros
179 as possible alternative mechanisms.
181 What level of testing is expected before I submit my change?
182 ------------------------------------------------------------
183 If your changes are against ``net-next``, the expectation is that you
184 have tested by layering your changes on top of ``net-next``. Ideally
185 you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a
186 minimum, your changes should survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an
187 ``allmodconfig`` build without new warnings or failures.
189 How do I post corresponding changes to user space components?
190 -------------------------------------------------------------
191 User space code exercising kernel features should be posted
192 alongside kernel patches. This gives reviewers a chance to see
193 how any new interface is used and how well it works.
195 When user space tools reside in the kernel repo itself all changes
196 should generally come as one series. If series becomes too large
197 or the user space project is not reviewed on netdev include a link
198 to a public repo where user space patches can be seen.
200 In case user space tooling lives in a separate repository but is
201 reviewed on netdev (e.g. patches to `iproute2` tools) kernel and
202 user space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted
203 to the mailing list, e.g.::
205 [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: some feature cover letter
206 └─ [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: some feature prep
207 └─ [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: some feature do it
208 └─ [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftest: net: some feature
210 [PATCH iproute2-next] ip: add support for some feature
212 Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork
213 (as of patchwork 2.2.2).
215 Can I reproduce the checks from patchwork on my local machine?
216 --------------------------------------------------------------
218 Checks in patchwork are mostly simple wrappers around existing kernel
219 scripts, the sources are available at:
221 https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/tree/master/tests
223 Running all the builds and checks locally is a pain, can I post my patches and have the patchwork bot validate them?
224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
226 No, you must ensure that your patches are ready by testing them locally
227 before posting to the mailing list. The patchwork build bot instance
228 gets overloaded very easily and netdev@vger really doesn't need more
229 traffic if we can help it.
231 netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests?
232 -------------------------------------------------------------
234 No, `netdevsim` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests.
235 (Please add your tests under tools/testing/selftests/.)
237 We also give no guarantees that `netdevsim` won't change in the future
238 in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI.
240 Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API?
241 -------------------------------------------
243 Linux kernel has a long standing rule that no API should be added unless
244 it has a real, in-tree user. Mock-ups and tests based on `netdevsim` are
245 strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but `netdevsim` in itself
246 is **not** considered a use case/user.
248 Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd?
249 --------------------------------------------------------------
250 Attention to detail. Re-read your own work as if you were the
251 reviewer. You can start with using ``checkpatch.pl``, perhaps even with
252 the ``--strict`` flag. But do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so.
253 If your change is a bug fix, make sure your commit log indicates the
254 end-user visible symptom, the underlying reason as to why it happens,
255 and then if necessary, explain why the fix proposed is the best way to
256 get things done. Don't mangle whitespace, and as is common, don't
257 mis-indent function arguments that span multiple lines. If it is your
258 first patch, mail it to yourself so you can test apply it to an
259 unpatched tree to confirm infrastructure didn't mangle it.
261 Finally, go back and read
262 :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
263 to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.