diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst | 18 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/embargoed-hardware-issues.rst | 20 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 15 |
4 files changed, 47 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst index bf7cbfb4caa5..43291704338e 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ pull. The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server. +.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews: Reviewing patches ----------------- @@ -167,6 +168,12 @@ comments as questions rather than criticisms. Asking "how does the lock get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the locking here is wrong." +Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others +to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges, +then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in +agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon. +The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight. + Different developers will review code from different points of view. Some are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing white space. Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented @@ -176,3 +183,14 @@ security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc. All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are welcome and worthwhile. + +There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``. +In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged +even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this +submission and it looks good to me." +Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise +maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all! + +Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused +on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while, +particularly for newbies! diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst index b48da698d6f2..bb96ca0f774b 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils. ====================== =============== ======================================== GNU C 5.1 gcc --version Clang/LLVM (optional) 11.0.0 clang --version -Rust (optional) 1.71.1 rustc --version +Rust (optional) 1.73.0 rustc --version bindgen (optional) 0.65.1 bindgen --version GNU make 3.82 make --version bash 4.2 bash --version diff --git a/Documentation/process/embargoed-hardware-issues.rst b/Documentation/process/embargoed-hardware-issues.rst index cb686238f21d..31000f075707 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/embargoed-hardware-issues.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/embargoed-hardware-issues.rst @@ -25,15 +25,15 @@ Contact The Linux kernel hardware security team is separate from the regular Linux kernel security team. -The team only handles the coordination of embargoed hardware security -issues. Reports of pure software security bugs in the Linux kernel are not +The team only handles developing fixes for embargoed hardware security +issues. Reports of pure software security bugs in the Linux kernel are not handled by this team and the reporter will be guided to contact the regular Linux kernel security team (:ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/ <securitybugs>`) instead. The team can be contacted by email at <hardware-security@kernel.org>. This -is a private list of security officers who will help you to coordinate an -issue according to our documented process. +is a private list of security officers who will help you to coordinate a +fix according to our documented process. The list is encrypted and email to the list can be sent by either PGP or S/MIME encrypted and must be signed with the reporter's PGP key or S/MIME @@ -132,11 +132,11 @@ other hardware could be affected. The hardware security team will provide an incident-specific encrypted mailing-list which will be used for initial discussion with the reporter, -further disclosure and coordination. +further disclosure, and coordination of fixes. The hardware security team will provide the disclosing party a list of developers (domain experts) who should be informed initially about the -issue after confirming with the developers that they will adhere to this +issue after confirming with the developers that they will adhere to this Memorandum of Understanding and the documented process. These developers form the initial response team and will be responsible for handling the issue after initial contact. The hardware security team is supporting the @@ -209,13 +209,18 @@ five work days this is taken as silent acknowledgement. After acknowledgement or resolution of an objection the expert is disclosed by the incident team and brought into the development process. +List participants may not communicate about the issue outside of the +private mailing list. List participants may not use any shared resources +(e.g. employer build farms, CI systems, etc) when working on patches. + Coordinated release """"""""""""""""""" The involved parties will negotiate the date and time where the embargo ends. At that point the prepared mitigations are integrated into the -relevant kernel trees and published. +relevant kernel trees and published. There is no pre-notification process: +fixes are published in public and available to everyone at the same time. While we understand that hardware security issues need coordinated embargo time, the embargo time should be constrained to the minimum time which is @@ -251,6 +256,7 @@ an involved disclosed party. The current ambassadors list: IBM Z Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Intel Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> Qualcomm Trilok Soni <tsoni@codeaurora.org> + RISC-V Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> Samsung Javier González <javier.gonz@samsung.com> Microsoft James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst index 09dcf6377c27..7feacc20835e 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst @@ -441,6 +441,21 @@ in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI. new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under ``tools/testing/selftests/``. +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. + +Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth +review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial or subjective +matters like code formatting, tags etc. + Testimonials / feedback ----------------------- |