| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Some corporate proxies block our current NIPA URLs because
they use a free / shady DNS domain. As suggested by Jesse
we got a new DNS entry from Konstantin - netdev.bots.linux.dev,
use it.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
The patchwork states are largely self-explanatory but small
ambiguities may still come up. Document how we interpret
the states in networking.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.
Reviewed-by: Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230823154922.1162644-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
Move the status page from vger to the same server as mailbot.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230710174636.1174684-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
Reword slightly now that all MAINTAINERS have access to the commands.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
We had a good run, but after 4 weeks of use we heard someone
asking about pw-bot commands. Let's explain its existence
in the docs. It's not a complete documentation but hopefully
it's enough for the casual contributor. The project and scope
are in flux so the details would likely become out of date,
if we were to document more in depth.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230522140057.GB18381@nucnuc.mle/
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230522230903.1853151-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
We don't state explicitly that reverts need to be submitted
as a patch. It occasionally comes up.
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230327172646.2622943-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
One of the most commonly asked questions is "I answered all questions
and don't need to make any code changes, why was the patch not applied".
Document our time honored tradition of asking people to repost with
improved commit messages, to record the answers to reviewer questions.
Take this opportunity to also recommend a change log format.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230322231202.265835-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
|
|
The netdev-FAQ document has grown over the years to the point
where finding information in it is somewhat challenging.
The length of the questions prevents readers from locating
content that's relevant at a glance.
Convert to a more standard documentation format with sections
and sub-sections rather than questions and answers.
The content edits are limited to what's necessary to change
the format, and very minor clarifications.
Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Subsequent changes will reformat the doc away from FAQ.
To make that more readable perform the pure section moves now.
Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Some of us gotten used to producing large quantities of peer feedback
at work, every 3 or 6 months. Extending the same courtesy to community
members seems like a logical step. It may be hard for some folks to
get validation of how important their work is internally, especially
at smaller companies which don't employ many kernel experts.
The concept of "peer feedback" may be a hyperscaler / silicon valley
thing so YMMV. Hopefully we can build more context as we go.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Summarize the rules we see broken most often and which may
be less familiar to kernel devs who are used to working outside
of netdev.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
Similarly to the 15 patch rule the reverse xmas tree is not
documented.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
We had been asking people to avoid massive patch series but it does
not appear in the FAQ.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
|
The documentation for the tip tree is really in quite a similar
spirit to the netdev-FAQ. Move the netdev-FAQ to the process docs
as well.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
|
