[PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Tobin C. Harding]

Jon,

Is it ok for this to go through Dave's tree?  Patch one touches a
line in Documentation/networking/index.rst  Patch two depends on patch
one so it needs to go through the same tree please.


Dave (and Jon),

Kernel docs are prefer restructured text (RST) format.  In doing the
conversion I tried a bunch of different ways to break it up to ease
review.  Nothing I tried worked since so many of the changes touch so
many lines.  In the end I did the whole conversion as a single patch and
listed in the patch commit log each type of change that was made.

Also, with these conversions I'm finding it difficult to split the
changes into separate patches and still keep the tree sane after each
patch.

In an effort to catch mistakes I did the conversion over three days -
there is only so many times you can read a docs file in one day without
your eyes starting to bleed.

Any tips and/or suggestions on making this and future conversions easier
to review much appreciated.  If changes are not widespread it seems to
be better to split the file rename into a separate patch then make the
changes after that.  (For this one it didn't help.)


thanks,
Tobin.

Tobin C. Harding (2):
  docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format
  docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to restructured text

 Documentation/networking/index.rst           |   1 +
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst      | 259 +++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt      | 244 -----------------
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst |   1 +
 4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 244 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

-- 
2.17.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Tobin C. Harding]

Jon,

Is it ok for this to go through Dave's tree?  Patch one touches a
line in Documentation/networking/index.rst  Patch two depends on patch
one so it needs to go through the same tree please.


Dave (and Jon),

Kernel docs are prefer restructured text (RST) format.  In doing the
conversion I tried a bunch of different ways to break it up to ease
review.  Nothing I tried worked since so many of the changes touch so
many lines.  In the end I did the whole conversion as a single patch and
listed in the patch commit log each type of change that was made.

Also, with these conversions I'm finding it difficult to split the
changes into separate patches and still keep the tree sane after each
patch.

In an effort to catch mistakes I did the conversion over three days -
there is only so many times you can read a docs file in one day without
your eyes starting to bleed.

Any tips and/or suggestions on making this and future conversions easier
to review much appreciated.  If changes are not widespread it seems to
be better to split the file rename into a separate patch then make the
changes after that.  (For this one it didn't help.)


thanks,
Tobin.

Tobin C. Harding (2):
  docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format
  docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to restructured text

 Documentation/networking/index.rst           |   1 +
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst      | 259 +++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt      | 244 -----------------
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst |   1 +
 4 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 244 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH net-next 1/2] docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format

[Tobin C. Harding]

In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
restructured text format we would like to be able to reference 'the
canonical patch format' section.

Add rest label: 'the_canonical_path_format'.

Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 908bb55be407..c0917107b90a 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -611,6 +611,7 @@ which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred
 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
 for more details.
 
+.. _the_canonical_patch_format:
 
 14) The canonical patch format
 ------------------------------
-- 
2.17.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH net-next 1/2] docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format

[Tobin C. Harding]

In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
restructured text format we would like to be able to reference 'the
canonical patch format' section.

Add rest label: 'the_canonical_path_format'.

Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 908bb55be407..c0917107b90a 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -611,6 +611,7 @@ which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred
 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
 for more details.
 
+.. _the_canonical_patch_format:
 
 14) The canonical patch format
 ------------------------------
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format

[Edward Cree]

On 25/07/18 03:50, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
> restructured text format we would like to be able to reference 'the
> canonical patch format' section.
>
> Add rest label: 'the_canonical_path_format'.
Here and in the Subject, 'patch' is typoed as 'path'.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format

[Edward Cree]

On 25/07/18 03:50, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
> restructured text format we would like to be able to reference 'the
> canonical patch format' section.
>
> Add rest label: 'the_canonical_path_format'.
Here and in the Subject, 'patch' is typoed as 'path'.

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 25/07/18 03:50, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
> > restructured text format we would like to be able to reference 'the
> > canonical patch format' section.
> >
> > Add rest label: 'the_canonical_path_format'.
> Here and in the Subject, 'patch' is typoed as 'path'.


Thanks for the review Edward, will fix for next spin.


	Tobin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] docs: Add rest label the_canonical_path_format

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 25/07/18 03:50, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
> > restructured text format we would like to be able to reference 'the
> > canonical patch format' section.
> >
> > Add rest label: 'the_canonical_path_format'.
> Here and in the Subject, 'patch' is typoed as 'path'.


Thanks for the review Edward, will fix for next spin.


	Tobin

[PATCH net-next 2/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to restructured text

[Tobin C. Harding]

Preferred kernel docs format is now restructured text.  Convert
netdev-FAQ.txt to restructured text.

 - Add SPDX license identifier.

 - Change file heading 'Information you need to know about netdev' to
  'netdev FAQ' to better suit displayed index (in HTML).

 - Change question/answer layout to suit rst.  Copy format in
   Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst

 - Fix indentation of code snippets

 - If multiple consecutive URLs appear put them in a list (to maintain
  whitespace).

 - Use uniform spelling of 'bug fix' throughout document (not bugfix or
   bug-fix).

 - Add double back ticks to 'net' and 'net-next' when referring to the
   trees.

 - Use rst references for Documentation/ links.

 - Add rst label 'netdev-FAQ' for referencing by other docs files.

Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
---
 Documentation/networking/index.rst      |   1 +
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 259 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt | 244 ----------------------
 3 files changed, 260 insertions(+), 244 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/index.rst b/Documentation/networking/index.rst
index f0ae9b65dfba..884a26145f20 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/index.rst
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Contents:
 .. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 2
 
+   netdev-FAQ
    af_xdp
    batman-adv
    can
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d388843d4d54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+.. _netdev-FAQ:
+
+==========
+netdev FAQ
+==========
+
+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:
+
+- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git
+- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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.  You may
+also check the following website for the current status:
+
+  http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
+
+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 bug fixes.
+
+Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
+
+Q: So where are we now in this cycle?
+
+Load the mainline (Linus) page here:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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?
+--------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series
+----------------------------------------------------
+Q: should I directly update patchwork for the previous versions of these
+patch series?
+A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave
+it to the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current
+version that should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer
+will reply and ask what should be done.
+
+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:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: Should I request it via stable@vger.kernel.org like the references in
+the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say?
+A: No, not for networking.  Check the stable queues as per above first
+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 :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`
+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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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 bug fix 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
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <the_canonical_patch_format>`
+to temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
+
+Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases?
+------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the
+last two stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable
+branch maintainer is supposed to take care of them. If you find any
+patch is missing from an earlier stable branch, please notify
+stable@vger.kernel.org with either a commit ID or a formal patch
+backported, and CC Dave and other relevant networking developers.
+
+Q: Is the comment style convention different for the networking content?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
+to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. 
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index fa951b820b25..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,244 +0,0 @@
-
-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:
-
-        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git
-        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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.  You may also check the following
-   website for the current status:
-
-        http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
-
-   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:
-
-	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series, should I directly update
-   patchwork for the previous versions of these patch series?
-
-A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave it to
-   the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current version that
-   should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer will reply and ask
-   what should be done.
-
-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:
-	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst 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/process/submitting-patches.rst to
-   temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
-
-Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases?
-
-A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the last
-   2 stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable branch maintainer
-   is supposed to take care of them. If you find any patch is missing from an
-   earlier stable branch, please notify stable@vger.kernel.org with either a
-   commit ID or a formal patch backported, and CC Dave and other relevant
-   networking developers.
-
-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/process/submitting-patches.rst to be
-   sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.
-- 
2.17.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH net-next 2/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to restructured text

[Tobin C. Harding]

Preferred kernel docs format is now restructured text.  Convert
netdev-FAQ.txt to restructured text.

 - Add SPDX license identifier.

 - Change file heading 'Information you need to know about netdev' to
  'netdev FAQ' to better suit displayed index (in HTML).

 - Change question/answer layout to suit rst.  Copy format in
   Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst

 - Fix indentation of code snippets

 - If multiple consecutive URLs appear put them in a list (to maintain
  whitespace).

 - Use uniform spelling of 'bug fix' throughout document (not bugfix or
   bug-fix).

 - Add double back ticks to 'net' and 'net-next' when referring to the
   trees.

 - Use rst references for Documentation/ links.

 - Add rst label 'netdev-FAQ' for referencing by other docs files.

Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
---
 Documentation/networking/index.rst      |   1 +
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 259 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt | 244 ----------------------
 3 files changed, 260 insertions(+), 244 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/index.rst b/Documentation/networking/index.rst
index f0ae9b65dfba..884a26145f20 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/index.rst
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Contents:
 .. toctree::
    :maxdepth: 2
 
+   netdev-FAQ
    af_xdp
    batman-adv
    can
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d388843d4d54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+.. _netdev-FAQ:
+
+==========
+netdev FAQ
+==========
+
+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:
+
+- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git
+- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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.  You may
+also check the following website for the current status:
+
+  http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
+
+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 bug fixes.
+
+Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
+
+Q: So where are we now in this cycle?
+
+Load the mainline (Linus) page here:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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?
+--------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series
+----------------------------------------------------
+Q: should I directly update patchwork for the previous versions of these
+patch series?
+A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave
+it to the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current
+version that should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer
+will reply and ask what should be done.
+
+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:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: Should I request it via stable@vger.kernel.org like the references in
+the kernel's Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file say?
+A: No, not for networking.  Check the stable queues as per above first
+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 :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`
+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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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 bug fix 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
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <the_canonical_patch_format>`
+to temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
+
+Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases?
+------------------------------------------------------------------
+A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the
+last two stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable
+branch maintainer is supposed to take care of them. If you find any
+patch is missing from an earlier stable branch, please notify
+stable@vger.kernel.org with either a commit ID or a formal patch
+backported, and CC Dave and other relevant networking developers.
+
+Q: Is the comment style convention different for the networking content?
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Q: 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
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
+to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there. 
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index fa951b820b25..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,244 +0,0 @@
-
-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:
-
-        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git
-        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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.  You may also check the following
-   website for the current status:
-
-        http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html
-
-   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:
-
-	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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: I submitted multiple versions of the patch series, should I directly update
-   patchwork for the previous versions of these patch series?
-
-A: No, please don't interfere with the patch status on patchwork, leave it to
-   the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current version that
-   should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer will reply and ask
-   what should be done.
-
-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:
-	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst 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/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst 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/process/submitting-patches.rst to
-   temporarily embed that information into the patch that you send.
-
-Q: Are all networking bug fixes backported to all stable releases?
-
-A: Due to capacity, Dave could only take care of the backports for the last
-   2 stable releases. For earlier stable releases, each stable branch maintainer
-   is supposed to take care of them. If you find any patch is missing from an
-   earlier stable branch, please notify stable@vger.kernel.org with either a
-   commit ID or a formal patch backported, and CC Dave and other relevant
-   networking developers.
-
-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/process/submitting-patches.rst to be
-   sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:50:03PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:

Please drop this.  I've forgotten to deal with the links from
Documentation/*.rst to Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt


Since I've already botched it can I ask for guidance here.  The problem
is updating the links means making changes that will cause merge
conflicts if they go through net-dev tree (since most references are in
Documentation/*.rst).  But we can't go through docs tree either since
that could lead to merge conflicts later as well.

My idea was to leave netdev-FAQ.txt in place but with all content
removed except

  'This file has moved to netdev-FAQ.rst. This file will be removed once
  netdev RST conversion is complete'

And then do the same for each file conversion under
Documentation/networking/.  Once all the files are converted a single
patch set updating all references into Documentation/networking/*.rst
could be posted to the docs tree.

One other idea was to leave a symlink netdev-FAQ.txt -> netdev-FAQ.rst
but I don't know how that would play with the build system (docs or
otherwise).


thanks,
Tobin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:50:03PM +1000, Tobin C. Harding wrote:

Please drop this.  I've forgotten to deal with the links from
Documentation/*.rst to Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt


Since I've already botched it can I ask for guidance here.  The problem
is updating the links means making changes that will cause merge
conflicts if they go through net-dev tree (since most references are in
Documentation/*.rst).  But we can't go through docs tree either since
that could lead to merge conflicts later as well.

My idea was to leave netdev-FAQ.txt in place but with all content
removed except

  'This file has moved to netdev-FAQ.rst. This file will be removed once
  netdev RST conversion is complete'

And then do the same for each file conversion under
Documentation/networking/.  Once all the files are converted a single
patch set updating all references into Documentation/networking/*.rst
could be posted to the docs tree.

One other idea was to leave a symlink netdev-FAQ.txt -> netdev-FAQ.rst
but I don't know how that would play with the build system (docs or
otherwise).


thanks,
Tobin.

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:28:10 +1000
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc> wrote:

> Since I've already botched it can I ask for guidance here.  The problem
> is updating the links means making changes that will cause merge
> conflicts if they go through net-dev tree (since most references are in
> Documentation/*.rst).  But we can't go through docs tree either since
> that could lead to merge conflicts later as well.

Merge conflicts are a way of life in Documentation/ - everybody messes
with it.  They are usually pretty easy to resolve.

I only see a handful of references to netdev-FAQ.txt in the tree; I would
suggest just making the change and being done with it.  There shouldn't be
any need to do a more complicated dance than that.

And to answer your other question, yes of course it's fine (and expected)
for this to go through Dave's tree.

Thanks,

jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:28:10 +1000
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc> wrote:

> Since I've already botched it can I ask for guidance here.  The problem
> is updating the links means making changes that will cause merge
> conflicts if they go through net-dev tree (since most references are in
> Documentation/*.rst).  But we can't go through docs tree either since
> that could lead to merge conflicts later as well.

Merge conflicts are a way of life in Documentation/ - everybody messes
with it.  They are usually pretty easy to resolve.

I only see a handful of references to netdev-FAQ.txt in the tree; I would
suggest just making the change and being done with it.  There shouldn't be
any need to do a more complicated dance than that.

And to answer your other question, yes of course it's fine (and expected)
for this to go through Dave's tree.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:14:15AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:28:10 +1000
> "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
> 
> > Since I've already botched it can I ask for guidance here.  The problem
> > is updating the links means making changes that will cause merge
> > conflicts if they go through net-dev tree (since most references are in
> > Documentation/*.rst).  But we can't go through docs tree either since
> > that could lead to merge conflicts later as well.
> 
> Merge conflicts are a way of life in Documentation/ - everybody messes
> with it.  They are usually pretty easy to resolve.
> 
> I only see a handful of references to netdev-FAQ.txt in the tree; I would
> suggest just making the change and being done with it.  There shouldn't be
> any need to do a more complicated dance than that.

Ok, I'll re-spin with all references fixed.

> And to answer your other question, yes of course it's fine (and expected)
> for this to go through Dave's tree.

And accept abuse for all merge conflicts in person at Plumbers in November :)

Thanks,
Tobin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] docs: net: Convert netdev-FAQ to RST

[Tobin C. Harding]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:14:15AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:28:10 +1000
> "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
> 
> > Since I've already botched it can I ask for guidance here.  The problem
> > is updating the links means making changes that will cause merge
> > conflicts if they go through net-dev tree (since most references are in
> > Documentation/*.rst).  But we can't go through docs tree either since
> > that could lead to merge conflicts later as well.
> 
> Merge conflicts are a way of life in Documentation/ - everybody messes
> with it.  They are usually pretty easy to resolve.
> 
> I only see a handful of references to netdev-FAQ.txt in the tree; I would
> suggest just making the change and being done with it.  There shouldn't be
> any need to do a more complicated dance than that.

Ok, I'll re-spin with all references fixed.

> And to answer your other question, yes of course it's fine (and expected)
> for this to go through Dave's tree.

And accept abuse for all merge conflicts in person at Plumbers in November :)

Thanks,
Tobin.