Initial import

1 files changed, 224 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0fe1c6e0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+
+Information you need to know about netdev
+-----------------------------------------
+
+Q: What is netdev?
+
+A: It 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.
+
+   The netdev list is managed (like many other Linux mailing lists) through
+   VGER ( http://vger.kernel.org/ ) and archives can be found below:
+
+	http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev
+	http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/
+
+   Aside from subsystems like that mentioned above, all network-related Linux
+   development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on netdev.
+
+Q: How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux?
+
+A: There are always two 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:
+
+	http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git
+	http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git
+
+Q: How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree?
+
+A: To understand this, you need to know 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.
+
+   Relating that to netdev:  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.
+
+   IMPORTANT:  Do not send new net-next content to netdev during the
+   period during which net-next tree is closed.
+
+   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.
+
+   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 bugfixes.
+
+   Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
+
+Q: So where are we now in this cycle?
+
+A: Load the mainline (Linus) page here:
+
+	http://git.kernel.org/?p=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.
+
+Q: How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in?
+
+A: Firstly, think whether you have a bug fix or new "next-like" content.
+   Then once decided, assuming that you use git, use the prefix flag, i.e.
+
+	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.  If you don't use git, then note the only magic in
+   the above is just the subject text of the outgoing e-mail, and you can
+   manually change it yourself with whatever MUA you are comfortable with.
+
+Q: I sent a patch and I'm wondering what happened to it.  How can I tell
+   whether it got merged?
+
+A: Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev:
+
+	http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/list/
+
+   The "State" field will tell you exactly where things are at with
+   your patch.
+
+Q: The above only says "Under Review".  How can I find out more?
+
+A: Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than 48h).
+   So be patient.  Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
+   patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to
+   the bottom of the priority list.
+
+Q: How can I tell what patches are queued up for backporting to the
+   various stable releases?
+
+A: Normally Greg Kroah-Hartman collects stable commits himself, but
+   for networking, Dave collects up patches he deems critical for the
+   networking subsystem, and then hands them off to Greg.
+
+   There is a patchworks queue that you can see here:
+	http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?state=*
+
+   It contains the patches which Dave has selected, but not yet handed
+   off to Greg.  If Greg already has the patch, then it will be here:
+	http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
+
+   A quick way to find whether the patch is in this stable-queue is
+   to simply clone the repo, and then git grep the mainline commit ID, e.g.
+
+	stable-queue$ git grep -l 284041ef21fdf2e
+	releases/3.0.84/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
+	releases/3.4.51/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
+	releases/3.9.8/ipv6-fix-possible-crashes-in-ip6_cork_release.patch
+	stable/stable-queue$
+
+Q: I see a network patch and I think it should be backported to stable.
+   Should I request it via "stable@vger.kernel.org" like the references in
+   the kernel's Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt file say?
+
+A: No, not for networking.  Check the stable queues as per above 1st to see
+   if it is already queued.  If not, then send a mail to netdev, listing
+   the upstream commit ID and why you think it should be a stable candidate.
+
+   Before you jump to go do the above, do note that the normal stable rules
+   in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt still apply.  So you need to
+   explicitly indicate why it is a critical fix and exactly what users are
+   impacted.  In addition, you need to convince yourself that you _really_
+   think it has been overlooked, vs. having been considered and rejected.
+
+   Generally speaking, the longer it has had a chance to "soak" in mainline,
+   the better the odds that it is an OK candidate for stable.  So scrambling
+   to request a commit be added the day after it appears should be avoided.
+
+Q: I have created a network patch and I think it should be backported to
+   stable.  Should I add a "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" like the references
+   in the kernel's Documentation/ directory say?
+
+A: No.  See above answer.  In short, if you think it really belongs in
+   stable, then ensure you write a decent commit log that describes who
+   gets impacted by the bugfix and how it manifests itself, and when the
+   bug was introduced.  If you do that properly, then the commit will
+   get handled appropriately and most likely get put in the patchworks
+   stable queue if it really warrants it.
+
+   If you think there is some valid information relating to it being in
+   stable that does _not_ belong in the commit log, then use the three
+   dash marker line as described in Documentation/SubmittingPatches to
+   temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
+
+Q: Someone said that the comment style and coding convention is different
+   for the networking content.  Is this true?
+
+A: Yes, in a largely trivial way.  Instead of this:
+
+	/*
+	 * foobar blah blah blah
+	 * another line of text
+	 */
+
+   it is requested that you make it look like this:
+
+	/* foobar blah blah blah
+	 * another line of text
+	 */
+
+Q: 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?
+
+A: Make it the latter style, so that eventually all code in the domain of
+   netdev is of this format.
+
+Q: I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar.
+   Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list?
+
+A: No. 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.
+
+Q: What level of testing is expected before I submit my change?
+
+A: If your changes are against net-next, the expectation is that you
+   have tested by layering your changes on top of net-next.  Ideally 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: 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
+   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 Documentation/SubmittingPatches to be
+   sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.