Re: bpf-next experiment

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:15 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > 2. Non-networking bpf commits land in bpf-next/master branch.
>> > It will form bpf-next PR during the merge window.
>> >
>> > 3. Networking related commits (like XDP) land in bpf-next/net branch.
>> > They will be PR-ed to net-next and ffwded from net-next
>> > as we do today. All these patches will get to mainline
>> > via net-next PR.
>>
>> So from a submitter PoV, someone submitting an XDP-related patch (say),
>> should base this off of bpf-next/net, and tag it as bpf-next in the
>> subject? Or should it also be tagged as bpf-next/net?
>
> This part we're still figuring out.
> There are few considerations...
> it's certainly easier for bpf CI when the patch set
> is tagged with [PATCH bpf-next/net] then CI won't try
> to find the branch,
> but it will take a long time to teach all contributors
> to tag things differently,
> so CI would need to get smart anyway and would need
> to apply to /master, run tests, apply to /net, run tests too.
> Currently when there is no tag CI attempts to apply to bpf.git,
> if it fails, it tries to apply to bpf-next/master and only
> then reports back "merge conflict".
> It will do this for bpf, bpf-next/master, bpf-next/net now.
>
> Sometimes devs think that the patch is a fix, so they
> tag it with [PATCH bpf], but it might not be,
> and after review we apply it to bpf-next instead.
>
> So tree/branch to base patches off and tag don't
> matter that much.
> So I hope, in practice, we won't need to teach all
> developers about new tag and about new branch.
> We certainly won't be asking to resubmit if patches
> are not tagged one way or the other,
> but if you want to help CI and tell maintainers
> your preferences then certainly start using
> [PATCH bpf-next] and [PATCH bpf-next/net] when necessary.
> Or don't :) and instead help us make CI smarter :)

Alright, sounds good, thanks for clarifying! And exciting change in
general :)

-Toke