[PATCH v5] NFSD: Add a subsystem policy document

[PATCH v5] NFSD: Add a subsystem policy document

[Chuck Lever]

From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>

Steer contributors to NFSD's patchworks instance, list our patch
submission preferences, and more. The new document is based on the
existing netdev and xfs subsystem policy documents.

This is an attempt to add transparency to the process of accepting
contributions to NFSD and getting them merged upstream.

Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
---
 .../nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst     | 545 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst   |   1 +
 MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
 3 files changed, 547 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst

I'd like to apply this for v6.19. Can I get some R-b love? I promise
not to change the document again until it is merged and we have
actual version control.

Changes since v4:
* Corrected the patchworks URL
* Add Security Lead to list of maintainer roles

Changes since v3:
* Add the "external reviewer" role
* Mention the priority of interoperation with the Linux NFS client

Changes since v2:
* Add a section related to NFSD administrative interfaces
* Add a section on our observability preferences
* Expand the "Feature requests" section

Changes since RFC:
* Re-structured the "Patch Preparation" section
* Added a mention of the term uber "maintainer" role
* "Key Cycle Dates" renamed "Patch Acceptance"
* Added description of the nfsd-fixes branch
* Section on sensitive patches expanded

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..804dd365d3ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,545 @@
+NFSD Maintainer Entry Profile
+=============================
+
+A Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process
+documents (found in Documentation/process/) with customs that are
+specific to a subsystem and its maintainers. A contributor may use
+this document to set their expectations and avoid common mistakes.
+A maintainer may use these profiles to look across subsystems for
+opportunities to converge on best common practices.
+
+Overview
+--------
+The Network File System (NFS) is a standardized family of network
+protocols that enable access to files across a set of network-
+connected peer hosts. Applications on NFS clients access files that
+reside on file systems that are shared by NFS servers. A single
+network peer can act as both an NFS client and an NFS server.
+
+NFSD refers to the NFS server implementation included in the Linux
+kernel. An in-kernel NFS server has fast access to files stored
+in file systems local to that server. NFSD can share files stored
+on most of the file system types native to Linux, including xfs,
+ext4, btrfs, and tmpfs.
+
+Mailing list
+------------
+The linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list is a public list. Its
+purpose is to enable collaboration among developers working on the
+Linux NFS stack, both client and server. It is not a place for
+conversations that are not related directly to the Linux NFS stack.
+
+The linux-nfs mailing list is archived on lore.kernel.org.
+
+The Linux NFS community does not have a Slack or IRC chat room.
+
+Reporting bugs
+--------------
+If you experience an NFSD-related bug on a distribution-built
+kernel, please start by working with your Linux distributor.
+
+Bug reports against upstream Linux code bases are welcome on the
+linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list, where some active triage
+can be done. NFSD bugs may also be reported in the Linux kernel
+community's bugzilla at:
+
+  https://bugzilla.kernel.org
+
+Please file NFSD-related bugs under the "Filesystems/NFSD"
+component. In general, including as much detail as possible is a
+good start, including pertinent system log messages from both
+the client and server.
+
+For user space software related to NFSD, such as mountd or the
+exportfs command, report problems on linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org.
+You might be asked to move the report to a specific bug tracker.
+
+Contributor's Guide
+-------------------
+
+Standards compliance
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+The priority is for NFSD to interoperate fully with the Linux NFS
+client. We also test against other popular NFS client implementa-
+tions regularly at NFS bake-a-thon events (also known as plug-
+fests). Non-Linux NFS clients are not part of upstream NFSD CI/CD.
+
+The NFSD community strives to provide an NFS server implementation
+that interoperates with all standards-compliant NFS client
+implementations. This is done by staying as close as is sensible to
+the normative mandates in the IETF's published NFS, RPC, and GSS-API
+standards.
+
+It is always useful to reference an RFC and section number in a code
+comment where behavior deviates from the standard (and even when the
+behavior is compliant but the implementation is obfuscatory).
+
+On the rare occasion when a deviation from standard-mandated
+behavior is needed, brief documentation of the use case or
+deficiencies in the standard is a required part of in-code
+documentation.
+
+Care must always be taken to avoid leaking local error codes (ie,
+errnos) to clients of NFSD. A proper NFS status code is always
+required in NFS protocol replies.
+
+NFSD administrative interfaces
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+NFSD administrative interfaces include:
+
+- an NFSD or SUNRPC module parameter
+
+- export options in /etc/exports
+
+- files under /proc/fs/nfsd/ or /proc/sys/sunrpc/
+
+- the NFSD netlink protocol
+
+Frequently, a request is made to introduce or modify one of NFSD's
+traditional administrative interfaces. Certainly it is technically
+easy to introduce a new administrative setting. However, there are
+good reasons why the NFSD maintainers prefer to leave that as a last
+resort:
+
+- As with any API, administrative interfaces are difficult to get
+  right.
+
+- Once they are documented and have a legacy of use, administrative
+  interfaces become difficult to modify or remove.
+
+- Every new administrative setting multiplies the NFSD test matrix.
+
+- The cost of one administrative interface is incremental, but costs
+  add up across all of the existing interfaces.
+
+It is often better for everyone if effort is made up front to
+understanding the underlying requirement of the new setting, and
+then trying to make it tune itself (or to become otherwise
+unnecessary).
+
+If a new setting is indeed necessary, first consider adding it to
+the NFSD netlink protocol. Or if it doesn't need to be a reliable
+long term user space feature, it can be added to NFSD's menagerie of
+experimental settings which reside under /sys/kernel/debug/nfsd/ .
+
+Field observability
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+NFSD employs several different mechanisms for observing operation,
+including counters, printks, WARNings, and static trace points. Each
+have their strengths and weaknesses. Contributors should select the
+most appropriate tool for their task.
+
+- BUG must be avoided if at all possible, as it will frequently
+  result in a full system crash.
+
+- WARN is appropriate only when a full stack trace is useful.
+
+- printk can show detailed information. These must not be used
+  in code paths where they can be triggered repeatedly by remote
+  users.
+
+- dprintk can show detailed information, but can be enabled only
+  in pre-set groups. The overhead of emitting output makes dprintk
+  inappropriate for frequent operations like I/O.
+
+- Counters are always on, but provide little information about
+  individual events other than how frequently they occur.
+
+- static trace points can be enabled individually or in groups
+  (via a glob). These are generally low overhead, and thus are
+  favored for use in hot paths.
+
+- dynamic tracing, such as kprobes or eBPF, are quite flexible but
+  cannot be used in certain environments (eg, full kernel lock-
+  down).
+
+Testing
+~~~~~~~
+The kdevops project
+
+  https://github.com/linux-kdevops/kdevops
+
+contains several NFS-specific workflows, as well as the community
+standard fstests suite. These workflows are based on open source
+testing tools such as ltp and fio. Contributors are encouraged to
+use these tools without kdevops, or contributors should install and
+use kdevops themselves to verify their patches before submission.
+
+Coding style
+~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Follow the coding style preferences described in
+
+  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+
+with the following exceptions:
+
+- Add new local variables to a function in reverse Christmas tree
+  order
+
+- Use the kdoc comment style for
+  + non-static functions
+  + static inline functions
+  + static functions that are callbacks/virtual functions
+
+- All new function names start with "nfsd_" for non-NFS-version-
+  specific functions.
+
+- New function names that are specific to NFSv2 or NFSv3, or are
+  used by all minor versions of NFSv4, use "nfsdN_" where N is
+  the version.
+
+- New function names specific to an NFSv4 minor version can be
+  named with "nfsd4M_" where M is the minor version.
+
+Patch preparation
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Read and follow all guidelines in
+
+  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+
+Use tagging to identify all patch authors. However, reviewers and
+testers should be added by replying to the email patch submission.
+Email is extensively used in order to publicly archive review and
+testing attributions. These tags are automatically inserted into
+your patches when they are applied.
+
+The code in the body of the diff already shows /what/ is being
+changed. Thus it is not necessary to repeat that in the patch
+description. Instead, the description should contain one or more
+of:
+
+- A brief problem statement ("what is this patch trying to fix?")
+  with a root-cause analysis.
+
+- End-user visible symptoms or items that a support engineer might
+  use to search for the patch, like stack traces.
+
+- A brief explanation of why the patch is the best way to address
+  the problem.
+
+- Any context that reviewers might need to understand the changes
+  made by the patch.
+
+- Any relevant benchmarking results, and/or functional test results.
+
+As detailed in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
+identify the point in history that the issue being addressed was
+introduced by using a Fixes: tag.
+
+Mention in the patch description if that point in history cannot be
+determined -- that is, no Fixes: tag can be provided. In this case,
+please make it clear to maintainers whether an LTS backport is
+needed even though there is no Fixes: tag.
+
+The NFSD maintainers prefer to add stable tagging themselves, after
+public discussion in response to the patch submission. Contributors
+may suggest stable tagging, but be aware that many version
+management tools add such stable Cc's when you post your patches.
+Don't add "Cc: stable" unless you are absolutely sure the patch
+needs to go to stable during the initial submission process.
+
+Patch submission
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Patches to NFSD are submitted via the kernel's email-based review
+process that is common to most other kernel subsystems.
+
+Just before each submission, rebase your patch or series on the
+nfsd-testing branch at
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
+
+The NFSD subsystem is maintained separately from the Linux in-kernel
+NFS client. The NFSD maintainers do not normally take submissions
+for client changes, nor can they respond authoritatively to bug
+reports or feature requests for NFS client code.
+
+This means that contributors might be asked to resubmit patches if
+they were emailed to the incorrect set of maintainers and reviewers.
+This is not a rejection, but simply a correction of the submission
+process.
+
+When in doubt, consult the NFSD entry in the MAINTAINERS file to
+see which files and directories fall under the NFSD subsystem.
+
+The proper set of email addresses for NFSD patches are:
+
+To: the NFSD maintainers and reviewers listed in MAINTAINERS
+Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and optionally linux-kernel@
+
+If there are other subsystems involved in the patches (for example
+MM or RDMA) their primary mailing list address can be included in
+the Cc: field. Other contributors and interested parties may be
+included there as well.
+
+In general we prefer that contributors use common patch email tools
+such as "git send-email" or "stg email format/send", which tend to
+get the details right without a lot of fuss.
+
+A series consisting of a single patch is not required to have a
+cover letter. However, a cover letter can be included if there is
+substantial context that is not appropriate to include in the
+patch description.
+
+Please note that cover letters are not part of the work that is
+committed to the kernel source code base or its commit history.
+Therefore always try to keep pertinent information in the patch
+descriptions.
+
+Design documentation is welcome, but as cover letters are not
+preserved, a perhaps better option is to include a patch that adds
+such documentation under Documentation/filesystems/nfs/.
+
+Reviewers will ask about test coverage and what use cases the
+patches are expected to address. Please be prepared to answer these
+questions.
+
+Review comments from maintainers might be politely stated, but in
+general, these are not optional to address when they are actionable.
+If necessary, the maintainers retain the right to not apply patches
+when contributors refuse to address reasonable requests.
+
+Post changes to kernel source code and user space source code as
+separate series. You can connect the two series with comments in
+your cover letters.
+
+Generally the NFSD maintainers ask for a reposts even for simple
+modifications in order to publicly archive the request and the
+resulting repost before it is pulled into the NFSD trees. This
+also enables us to rebuild a patch series quickly without missing
+changes that might have been discussed via email.
+
+Avoid frequently reposting large series with only small changes. As
+a rule of thumb, posting substantial changes more than once a week
+will result in reviewer overload.
+
+Remember, there are only a handful of subsystem maintainers and
+reviewers, but potentially many sources of contributions. The
+maintainers and reviewers, therefore, are always the less scalable
+resource. Be kind to your friendly neighborhood maintainer.
+
+Patch Acceptance
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+There isn't a formal review process for NFSD, but we like to see
+at least two Reviewed-by: notices for patches that are more than
+simple clean-ups. Reviews are done in public on
+linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and are archived on lore.kernel.org.
+
+Currently the NFSD patch queues are maintained in branches here:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
+
+The NFSD maintainers apply patches initially to the nfsd-testing
+branch, which is always open to new submissions. Patches can be
+applied while review is ongoing. nfsd-testing is a topic branch,
+so it can change frequently, it will be rebased, and your patch
+might get dropped if there is a problem with it.
+
+Generally a script-generated "thank you" email will indicate when
+your patch has been added to the nfsd-testing branch. You can track
+the progress of your patch using the linux-nfs patchworks instance:
+
+  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-nfs/list/
+
+While your patch is in nfsd-testing, it is exposed to a variety of
+test environments, including community zero-day bots, static
+analysis tools, and NFSD continuous integration testing. The soak
+period is three to four weeks.
+
+Each patch that survives in nfsd-testing for the soak period without
+changes is moved to the nfsd-next branch.
+
+The nfsd-next branch is automatically merged into linux-next and
+fs-next on a nightly basis.
+
+Patches that survive in nfsd-next are included in the next NFSD
+merge window pull request. These windows occur once every eight
+weeks.
+
+When the upstream merge window closes, the nfsd-next branch is
+renamed nfsd-fixes, and a new nfsd-next branch is created, based on
+the upstream -rc1 tag.
+
+Fixes that are destined for an upstream -rc release also run the
+nfsd-testing gauntlet, but are then applied to the nfsd-fixes
+branch. That branch is made available for Linus to pull after a
+short time. In order to limit the risk of introducing regressions,
+we limit such fixes to emergency situations or fixes to breakage
+that occurred during the most recent upstream merge.
+
+Please make it clear when submitting an emergency patch that
+immediate action (either application to -rc or LTS backport) is
+needed.
+
+Sensitive patch submissions and bug reports
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+CVEs are generated by specific members of the Linux kernel community
+and several external entities. The Linux NFS community does not emit
+or assign CVEs. CVEs are assigned after an issue and its fix are
+known.
+
+However, the NFSD maintainers sometimes receive sensitive security
+reports, and at times these are significant enough to need to be
+embargoed. In such rare cases, fixes can be developed and reviewed
+out of the public eye.
+
+Please be aware that many version management tools add the stable
+Cc's when you post your patches. This is generally a nuisance, but
+it can result in outing an embargoed security issue accidentally.
+Don't add "Cc: stable" unless you are absolutely sure the patch
+needs to go to stable@ during the initial submission process.
+
+Patches that are merged without ever appearing on any list, and
+which carry a Reported-by: or Fixes: tag are detected as suspicious
+by security-focused people. We encourage that, after any private
+review, security-sensitive patches should be posted to linux-nfs@
+for the usual public review, archiving, and test period.
+
+LLM-generated submissions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+The Linux kernel community as a whole is still exploring the new
+world of LLM-generated code. The NFSD maintainers will entertain
+submission of patches that are partially or wholly generated by
+LLM-based development tools. Such submissions are held to the
+same standards as submissions created entirely by human authors:
+
+- The human contributor identifies themselves via a Signed-off-by:
+  tag. This tag counts as a DoC.
+
+- The human contributor is solely responsible for code provenance
+  and any contamination by inadvertently-included code with a
+  conflicting license, as usual.
+
+- The human contributor must be able to answer and address review
+  questions. A patch description such as "This fixed my problem
+  but I don't know why" is not acceptable.
+
+- The contribution is subjected to the same test regimen as all
+  other submissions.
+
+- An indication (via a Generated-by: tag or otherwise) that the
+  contribution is LLM-generated is not required.
+
+It is easy to address review comments and fix requests in LLM
+generated code. So easy, in fact, that it becomes tempting to repost
+refreshed code immediately. Please resist that temptation.
+
+As always, please do not repost patches frequently.
+
+Clean-up patches
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+The NFSD maintainers discourage patches which perform simple clean-
+ups, which are not in the context of other work. For example:
+
+* Addressing ``checkpatch.pl`` warnings after merge
+* Addressing :ref:`Local variable ordering<rcs>` issues
+* Addressing long-standing whitespace damage
+
+This is because it is felt that the churn that such changes produce
+comes at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups.
+
+Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are encouraged.
+
+Stable and LTS support
+----------------------
+Upstream NFSD continuous integration testing runs against LTS trees
+whenever they are updated.
+
+Please indicate when a patch containing a fix needs to be considered
+for LTS kernels, either via a Fixes: tag or explicit mention.
+
+Feature requests
+----------------
+There is no one way to make an official feature request, but
+discussion about the request should eventually make its way to
+the linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list for public review by
+the community.
+
+Subsystem boundaries
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+NFSD itself is not much more than a protocol engine. This means its
+primary responsibility is to translate the NFS protocol into API
+calls in the Linux kernel. For example, NFSD is not responsible for
+knowing exactly how bytes or file attributes are managed on a block
+device. It relies on other kernel subsystems for that.
+
+If the subsystems on which NFSD relies do not implement a particular
+feature, even if the standard NFS protocols do support that feature,
+that usually means NFSD cannot provide that feature without
+substantial development work in other areas of the kernel.
+
+Specificity
+~~~~~~~~~~~
+Feature requests can come from anywhere, and thus can often be
+nebulous. A requester might not understand what a "use case" or
+"user story" is. These descriptive paradigms are often used by
+developers and architects to understand what is required of a
+design, but are terms of art in the software trade, not used in
+the everyday world.
+
+In order to prevent contributors and maintainers from becoming
+overwhelmed, we won't be afraid of saying "no" politely to
+underspecified requests.
+
+Community roles and their authority
+-----------------------------------
+The purpose of Linux subsystem communities is to provide expertise
+and active stewardship of a narrow set of source files in the Linux
+kernel. This can include managing user space tooling as well.
+
+To contextualize the structure of the Linux NFS community that
+is responsible for stewardship of the NFS server code base, we
+define the community roles here.
+
+- **Contributor** : Anyone who submits a code change, bug fix,
+  recommendation, documentation fix, and so on. A contributor can
+  submit regularly or infrequently.
+
+- **Outside Contributor** : A contributor who is not a regular actor
+  in the Linux NFS community. This can mean someone who contributes
+  to other parts of the kernel, or someone who just noticed a
+  misspelling in a comment and sent a patch.
+
+- **Reviewer** : Someone who is named in the MAINTAINERS file as a
+  reviewer is an area expert who can request changes to contributed
+  code, and expects that contributors will address the request.
+
+- **External Reviewer** : Someone who is not named in the
+  MAINTAINERS file as a reviewer, but who is an area expert.
+  Examples include Linux kernel contributors with networking,
+  security, or persistent storage expertise, or developers who
+  contribute primarily to other NFS implementations.
+
+One or more people will take on the following roles. These people
+are often generically referred to as "maintainers", and are
+identified in the MAINTAINERS file with the "M:" tag under the NFSD
+subsystem.
+
+- **Upstream Release Manager** : This role is responsible for
+  curating contributions into a branch, reviewing test results, and
+  then sending a pull request during merge windows. There is a
+  trust relationship between the release manager and Linus.
+
+- **Bug Triager** : Someone who is a first responder to bug reports
+  submitted to the linux-nfs mailing list or bug trackers, and helps
+  troubleshoot and identify next steps.
+
+- **Security Lead** : The security lead handles contacts from the
+  security community to resolve immediate issues, as well as dealing
+  with long-term security issues such as supply chain concerns. For
+  upstream, that's usually whether contributions violate licensing
+  or other intellectual property agreements.
+
+- **Testing Lead** : The testing lead builds and runs the test
+  infrastructure for the subsystem. The testing lead may ask for
+  patches to be dropped because of ongoing high defect rates.
+
+- **LTS Maintainer** : The LTS maintainer is responsible for managing
+  the Fixes: and Cc: stable annotations on patches, and seeing that
+  patches that cannot be automatically applied to LTS kernels get
+  proper manual backports as necessary.
+
+- **Community Manager** : This umpire role can be asked to call balls
+  and strikes during conflicts, but is also responsible for ensuring
+  the health of the relationships within the community and for
+  facilitating discussions on long-term topics such as how to manage
+  growing technical debt.
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
index d36dd892a78a..6020d188e13d 100644
--- a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
@@ -110,5 +110,6 @@ to do something different in the near future.
    ../process/maintainer-netdev
    ../driver-api/vfio-pci-device-specific-driver-acceptance
    ../nvme/feature-and-quirk-policy
+   ../filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile
    ../filesystems/xfs/xfs-maintainer-entry-profile
    ../mm/damon/maintainer-profile
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 46126ce2f968..981bb4eb5a8f 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -13541,6 +13541,7 @@ R:	Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>
 R:	Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
 L:	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
 S:	Supported
+P:	Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
 B:	https://bugzilla.kernel.org
 T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
 F:	Documentation/filesystems/nfs/
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v5] NFSD: Add a subsystem policy document

[NeilBrown]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025, Chuck Lever wrote:
> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> 
> Steer contributors to NFSD's patchworks instance, list our patch
> submission preferences, and more. The new document is based on the
> existing netdev and xfs subsystem policy documents.
> 
> This is an attempt to add transparency to the process of accepting
> contributions to NFSD and getting them merged upstream.
> 
> Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>

Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>

I confess that I didn't read *all* the words but there is lots of useful
stuff here and what I did read I liked.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

> ---
>  .../nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst     | 545 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst   |   1 +
>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>  3 files changed, 547 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> 
> I'd like to apply this for v6.19. Can I get some R-b love? I promise
> not to change the document again until it is merged and we have
> actual version control.
> 
> Changes since v4:
> * Corrected the patchworks URL
> * Add Security Lead to list of maintainer roles
> 
> Changes since v3:
> * Add the "external reviewer" role
> * Mention the priority of interoperation with the Linux NFS client
> 
> Changes since v2:
> * Add a section related to NFSD administrative interfaces
> * Add a section on our observability preferences
> * Expand the "Feature requests" section
> 
> Changes since RFC:
> * Re-structured the "Patch Preparation" section
> * Added a mention of the term uber "maintainer" role
> * "Key Cycle Dates" renamed "Patch Acceptance"
> * Added description of the nfsd-fixes branch
> * Section on sensitive patches expanded
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..804dd365d3ca
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,545 @@
> +NFSD Maintainer Entry Profile
> +=============================
> +
> +A Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process
> +documents (found in Documentation/process/) with customs that are
> +specific to a subsystem and its maintainers. A contributor may use
> +this document to set their expectations and avoid common mistakes.
> +A maintainer may use these profiles to look across subsystems for
> +opportunities to converge on best common practices.
> +
> +Overview
> +--------
> +The Network File System (NFS) is a standardized family of network
> +protocols that enable access to files across a set of network-
> +connected peer hosts. Applications on NFS clients access files that
> +reside on file systems that are shared by NFS servers. A single
> +network peer can act as both an NFS client and an NFS server.
> +
> +NFSD refers to the NFS server implementation included in the Linux
> +kernel. An in-kernel NFS server has fast access to files stored
> +in file systems local to that server. NFSD can share files stored
> +on most of the file system types native to Linux, including xfs,
> +ext4, btrfs, and tmpfs.
> +
> +Mailing list
> +------------
> +The linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list is a public list. Its
> +purpose is to enable collaboration among developers working on the
> +Linux NFS stack, both client and server. It is not a place for
> +conversations that are not related directly to the Linux NFS stack.
> +
> +The linux-nfs mailing list is archived on lore.kernel.org.
> +
> +The Linux NFS community does not have a Slack or IRC chat room.
> +
> +Reporting bugs
> +--------------
> +If you experience an NFSD-related bug on a distribution-built
> +kernel, please start by working with your Linux distributor.
> +
> +Bug reports against upstream Linux code bases are welcome on the
> +linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list, where some active triage
> +can be done. NFSD bugs may also be reported in the Linux kernel
> +community's bugzilla at:
> +
> +  https://bugzilla.kernel.org
> +
> +Please file NFSD-related bugs under the "Filesystems/NFSD"
> +component. In general, including as much detail as possible is a
> +good start, including pertinent system log messages from both
> +the client and server.
> +
> +For user space software related to NFSD, such as mountd or the
> +exportfs command, report problems on linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org.
> +You might be asked to move the report to a specific bug tracker.
> +
> +Contributor's Guide
> +-------------------
> +
> +Standards compliance
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +The priority is for NFSD to interoperate fully with the Linux NFS
> +client. We also test against other popular NFS client implementa-
> +tions regularly at NFS bake-a-thon events (also known as plug-
> +fests). Non-Linux NFS clients are not part of upstream NFSD CI/CD.
> +
> +The NFSD community strives to provide an NFS server implementation
> +that interoperates with all standards-compliant NFS client
> +implementations. This is done by staying as close as is sensible to
> +the normative mandates in the IETF's published NFS, RPC, and GSS-API
> +standards.
> +
> +It is always useful to reference an RFC and section number in a code
> +comment where behavior deviates from the standard (and even when the
> +behavior is compliant but the implementation is obfuscatory).
> +
> +On the rare occasion when a deviation from standard-mandated
> +behavior is needed, brief documentation of the use case or
> +deficiencies in the standard is a required part of in-code
> +documentation.
> +
> +Care must always be taken to avoid leaking local error codes (ie,
> +errnos) to clients of NFSD. A proper NFS status code is always
> +required in NFS protocol replies.
> +
> +NFSD administrative interfaces
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +NFSD administrative interfaces include:
> +
> +- an NFSD or SUNRPC module parameter
> +
> +- export options in /etc/exports
> +
> +- files under /proc/fs/nfsd/ or /proc/sys/sunrpc/
> +
> +- the NFSD netlink protocol
> +
> +Frequently, a request is made to introduce or modify one of NFSD's
> +traditional administrative interfaces. Certainly it is technically
> +easy to introduce a new administrative setting. However, there are
> +good reasons why the NFSD maintainers prefer to leave that as a last
> +resort:
> +
> +- As with any API, administrative interfaces are difficult to get
> +  right.
> +
> +- Once they are documented and have a legacy of use, administrative
> +  interfaces become difficult to modify or remove.
> +
> +- Every new administrative setting multiplies the NFSD test matrix.
> +
> +- The cost of one administrative interface is incremental, but costs
> +  add up across all of the existing interfaces.
> +
> +It is often better for everyone if effort is made up front to
> +understanding the underlying requirement of the new setting, and
> +then trying to make it tune itself (or to become otherwise
> +unnecessary).
> +
> +If a new setting is indeed necessary, first consider adding it to
> +the NFSD netlink protocol. Or if it doesn't need to be a reliable
> +long term user space feature, it can be added to NFSD's menagerie of
> +experimental settings which reside under /sys/kernel/debug/nfsd/ .
> +
> +Field observability
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +NFSD employs several different mechanisms for observing operation,
> +including counters, printks, WARNings, and static trace points. Each
> +have their strengths and weaknesses. Contributors should select the
> +most appropriate tool for their task.
> +
> +- BUG must be avoided if at all possible, as it will frequently
> +  result in a full system crash.
> +
> +- WARN is appropriate only when a full stack trace is useful.
> +
> +- printk can show detailed information. These must not be used
> +  in code paths where they can be triggered repeatedly by remote
> +  users.
> +
> +- dprintk can show detailed information, but can be enabled only
> +  in pre-set groups. The overhead of emitting output makes dprintk
> +  inappropriate for frequent operations like I/O.
> +
> +- Counters are always on, but provide little information about
> +  individual events other than how frequently they occur.
> +
> +- static trace points can be enabled individually or in groups
> +  (via a glob). These are generally low overhead, and thus are
> +  favored for use in hot paths.
> +
> +- dynamic tracing, such as kprobes or eBPF, are quite flexible but
> +  cannot be used in certain environments (eg, full kernel lock-
> +  down).
> +
> +Testing
> +~~~~~~~
> +The kdevops project
> +
> +  https://github.com/linux-kdevops/kdevops
> +
> +contains several NFS-specific workflows, as well as the community
> +standard fstests suite. These workflows are based on open source
> +testing tools such as ltp and fio. Contributors are encouraged to
> +use these tools without kdevops, or contributors should install and
> +use kdevops themselves to verify their patches before submission.
> +
> +Coding style
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Follow the coding style preferences described in
> +
> +  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +
> +with the following exceptions:
> +
> +- Add new local variables to a function in reverse Christmas tree
> +  order
> +
> +- Use the kdoc comment style for
> +  + non-static functions
> +  + static inline functions
> +  + static functions that are callbacks/virtual functions
> +
> +- All new function names start with "nfsd_" for non-NFS-version-
> +  specific functions.
> +
> +- New function names that are specific to NFSv2 or NFSv3, or are
> +  used by all minor versions of NFSv4, use "nfsdN_" where N is
> +  the version.
> +
> +- New function names specific to an NFSv4 minor version can be
> +  named with "nfsd4M_" where M is the minor version.
> +
> +Patch preparation
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Read and follow all guidelines in
> +
> +  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +
> +Use tagging to identify all patch authors. However, reviewers and
> +testers should be added by replying to the email patch submission.
> +Email is extensively used in order to publicly archive review and
> +testing attributions. These tags are automatically inserted into
> +your patches when they are applied.
> +
> +The code in the body of the diff already shows /what/ is being
> +changed. Thus it is not necessary to repeat that in the patch
> +description. Instead, the description should contain one or more
> +of:
> +
> +- A brief problem statement ("what is this patch trying to fix?")
> +  with a root-cause analysis.
> +
> +- End-user visible symptoms or items that a support engineer might
> +  use to search for the patch, like stack traces.
> +
> +- A brief explanation of why the patch is the best way to address
> +  the problem.
> +
> +- Any context that reviewers might need to understand the changes
> +  made by the patch.
> +
> +- Any relevant benchmarking results, and/or functional test results.
> +
> +As detailed in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
> +identify the point in history that the issue being addressed was
> +introduced by using a Fixes: tag.
> +
> +Mention in the patch description if that point in history cannot be
> +determined -- that is, no Fixes: tag can be provided. In this case,
> +please make it clear to maintainers whether an LTS backport is
> +needed even though there is no Fixes: tag.
> +
> +The NFSD maintainers prefer to add stable tagging themselves, after
> +public discussion in response to the patch submission. Contributors
> +may suggest stable tagging, but be aware that many version
> +management tools add such stable Cc's when you post your patches.
> +Don't add "Cc: stable" unless you are absolutely sure the patch
> +needs to go to stable during the initial submission process.
> +
> +Patch submission
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Patches to NFSD are submitted via the kernel's email-based review
> +process that is common to most other kernel subsystems.
> +
> +Just before each submission, rebase your patch or series on the
> +nfsd-testing branch at
> +
> +  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
> +
> +The NFSD subsystem is maintained separately from the Linux in-kernel
> +NFS client. The NFSD maintainers do not normally take submissions
> +for client changes, nor can they respond authoritatively to bug
> +reports or feature requests for NFS client code.
> +
> +This means that contributors might be asked to resubmit patches if
> +they were emailed to the incorrect set of maintainers and reviewers.
> +This is not a rejection, but simply a correction of the submission
> +process.
> +
> +When in doubt, consult the NFSD entry in the MAINTAINERS file to
> +see which files and directories fall under the NFSD subsystem.
> +
> +The proper set of email addresses for NFSD patches are:
> +
> +To: the NFSD maintainers and reviewers listed in MAINTAINERS
> +Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and optionally linux-kernel@
> +
> +If there are other subsystems involved in the patches (for example
> +MM or RDMA) their primary mailing list address can be included in
> +the Cc: field. Other contributors and interested parties may be
> +included there as well.
> +
> +In general we prefer that contributors use common patch email tools
> +such as "git send-email" or "stg email format/send", which tend to
> +get the details right without a lot of fuss.
> +
> +A series consisting of a single patch is not required to have a
> +cover letter. However, a cover letter can be included if there is
> +substantial context that is not appropriate to include in the
> +patch description.
> +
> +Please note that cover letters are not part of the work that is
> +committed to the kernel source code base or its commit history.
> +Therefore always try to keep pertinent information in the patch
> +descriptions.
> +
> +Design documentation is welcome, but as cover letters are not
> +preserved, a perhaps better option is to include a patch that adds
> +such documentation under Documentation/filesystems/nfs/.
> +
> +Reviewers will ask about test coverage and what use cases the
> +patches are expected to address. Please be prepared to answer these
> +questions.
> +
> +Review comments from maintainers might be politely stated, but in
> +general, these are not optional to address when they are actionable.
> +If necessary, the maintainers retain the right to not apply patches
> +when contributors refuse to address reasonable requests.
> +
> +Post changes to kernel source code and user space source code as
> +separate series. You can connect the two series with comments in
> +your cover letters.
> +
> +Generally the NFSD maintainers ask for a reposts even for simple
> +modifications in order to publicly archive the request and the
> +resulting repost before it is pulled into the NFSD trees. This
> +also enables us to rebuild a patch series quickly without missing
> +changes that might have been discussed via email.
> +
> +Avoid frequently reposting large series with only small changes. As
> +a rule of thumb, posting substantial changes more than once a week
> +will result in reviewer overload.
> +
> +Remember, there are only a handful of subsystem maintainers and
> +reviewers, but potentially many sources of contributions. The
> +maintainers and reviewers, therefore, are always the less scalable
> +resource. Be kind to your friendly neighborhood maintainer.
> +
> +Patch Acceptance
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +There isn't a formal review process for NFSD, but we like to see
> +at least two Reviewed-by: notices for patches that are more than
> +simple clean-ups. Reviews are done in public on
> +linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and are archived on lore.kernel.org.
> +
> +Currently the NFSD patch queues are maintained in branches here:
> +
> +  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
> +
> +The NFSD maintainers apply patches initially to the nfsd-testing
> +branch, which is always open to new submissions. Patches can be
> +applied while review is ongoing. nfsd-testing is a topic branch,
> +so it can change frequently, it will be rebased, and your patch
> +might get dropped if there is a problem with it.
> +
> +Generally a script-generated "thank you" email will indicate when
> +your patch has been added to the nfsd-testing branch. You can track
> +the progress of your patch using the linux-nfs patchworks instance:
> +
> +  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-nfs/list/
> +
> +While your patch is in nfsd-testing, it is exposed to a variety of
> +test environments, including community zero-day bots, static
> +analysis tools, and NFSD continuous integration testing. The soak
> +period is three to four weeks.
> +
> +Each patch that survives in nfsd-testing for the soak period without
> +changes is moved to the nfsd-next branch.
> +
> +The nfsd-next branch is automatically merged into linux-next and
> +fs-next on a nightly basis.
> +
> +Patches that survive in nfsd-next are included in the next NFSD
> +merge window pull request. These windows occur once every eight
> +weeks.
> +
> +When the upstream merge window closes, the nfsd-next branch is
> +renamed nfsd-fixes, and a new nfsd-next branch is created, based on
> +the upstream -rc1 tag.
> +
> +Fixes that are destined for an upstream -rc release also run the
> +nfsd-testing gauntlet, but are then applied to the nfsd-fixes
> +branch. That branch is made available for Linus to pull after a
> +short time. In order to limit the risk of introducing regressions,
> +we limit such fixes to emergency situations or fixes to breakage
> +that occurred during the most recent upstream merge.
> +
> +Please make it clear when submitting an emergency patch that
> +immediate action (either application to -rc or LTS backport) is
> +needed.
> +
> +Sensitive patch submissions and bug reports
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +CVEs are generated by specific members of the Linux kernel community
> +and several external entities. The Linux NFS community does not emit
> +or assign CVEs. CVEs are assigned after an issue and its fix are
> +known.
> +
> +However, the NFSD maintainers sometimes receive sensitive security
> +reports, and at times these are significant enough to need to be
> +embargoed. In such rare cases, fixes can be developed and reviewed
> +out of the public eye.
> +
> +Please be aware that many version management tools add the stable
> +Cc's when you post your patches. This is generally a nuisance, but
> +it can result in outing an embargoed security issue accidentally.
> +Don't add "Cc: stable" unless you are absolutely sure the patch
> +needs to go to stable@ during the initial submission process.
> +
> +Patches that are merged without ever appearing on any list, and
> +which carry a Reported-by: or Fixes: tag are detected as suspicious
> +by security-focused people. We encourage that, after any private
> +review, security-sensitive patches should be posted to linux-nfs@
> +for the usual public review, archiving, and test period.
> +
> +LLM-generated submissions
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +The Linux kernel community as a whole is still exploring the new
> +world of LLM-generated code. The NFSD maintainers will entertain
> +submission of patches that are partially or wholly generated by
> +LLM-based development tools. Such submissions are held to the
> +same standards as submissions created entirely by human authors:
> +
> +- The human contributor identifies themselves via a Signed-off-by:
> +  tag. This tag counts as a DoC.
> +
> +- The human contributor is solely responsible for code provenance
> +  and any contamination by inadvertently-included code with a
> +  conflicting license, as usual.
> +
> +- The human contributor must be able to answer and address review
> +  questions. A patch description such as "This fixed my problem
> +  but I don't know why" is not acceptable.
> +
> +- The contribution is subjected to the same test regimen as all
> +  other submissions.
> +
> +- An indication (via a Generated-by: tag or otherwise) that the
> +  contribution is LLM-generated is not required.
> +
> +It is easy to address review comments and fix requests in LLM
> +generated code. So easy, in fact, that it becomes tempting to repost
> +refreshed code immediately. Please resist that temptation.
> +
> +As always, please do not repost patches frequently.
> +
> +Clean-up patches
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +The NFSD maintainers discourage patches which perform simple clean-
> +ups, which are not in the context of other work. For example:
> +
> +* Addressing ``checkpatch.pl`` warnings after merge
> +* Addressing :ref:`Local variable ordering<rcs>` issues
> +* Addressing long-standing whitespace damage
> +
> +This is because it is felt that the churn that such changes produce
> +comes at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups.
> +
> +Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are encouraged.
> +
> +Stable and LTS support
> +----------------------
> +Upstream NFSD continuous integration testing runs against LTS trees
> +whenever they are updated.
> +
> +Please indicate when a patch containing a fix needs to be considered
> +for LTS kernels, either via a Fixes: tag or explicit mention.
> +
> +Feature requests
> +----------------
> +There is no one way to make an official feature request, but
> +discussion about the request should eventually make its way to
> +the linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list for public review by
> +the community.
> +
> +Subsystem boundaries
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +NFSD itself is not much more than a protocol engine. This means its
> +primary responsibility is to translate the NFS protocol into API
> +calls in the Linux kernel. For example, NFSD is not responsible for
> +knowing exactly how bytes or file attributes are managed on a block
> +device. It relies on other kernel subsystems for that.
> +
> +If the subsystems on which NFSD relies do not implement a particular
> +feature, even if the standard NFS protocols do support that feature,
> +that usually means NFSD cannot provide that feature without
> +substantial development work in other areas of the kernel.
> +
> +Specificity
> +~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Feature requests can come from anywhere, and thus can often be
> +nebulous. A requester might not understand what a "use case" or
> +"user story" is. These descriptive paradigms are often used by
> +developers and architects to understand what is required of a
> +design, but are terms of art in the software trade, not used in
> +the everyday world.
> +
> +In order to prevent contributors and maintainers from becoming
> +overwhelmed, we won't be afraid of saying "no" politely to
> +underspecified requests.
> +
> +Community roles and their authority
> +-----------------------------------
> +The purpose of Linux subsystem communities is to provide expertise
> +and active stewardship of a narrow set of source files in the Linux
> +kernel. This can include managing user space tooling as well.
> +
> +To contextualize the structure of the Linux NFS community that
> +is responsible for stewardship of the NFS server code base, we
> +define the community roles here.
> +
> +- **Contributor** : Anyone who submits a code change, bug fix,
> +  recommendation, documentation fix, and so on. A contributor can
> +  submit regularly or infrequently.
> +
> +- **Outside Contributor** : A contributor who is not a regular actor
> +  in the Linux NFS community. This can mean someone who contributes
> +  to other parts of the kernel, or someone who just noticed a
> +  misspelling in a comment and sent a patch.
> +
> +- **Reviewer** : Someone who is named in the MAINTAINERS file as a
> +  reviewer is an area expert who can request changes to contributed
> +  code, and expects that contributors will address the request.
> +
> +- **External Reviewer** : Someone who is not named in the
> +  MAINTAINERS file as a reviewer, but who is an area expert.
> +  Examples include Linux kernel contributors with networking,
> +  security, or persistent storage expertise, or developers who
> +  contribute primarily to other NFS implementations.
> +
> +One or more people will take on the following roles. These people
> +are often generically referred to as "maintainers", and are
> +identified in the MAINTAINERS file with the "M:" tag under the NFSD
> +subsystem.
> +
> +- **Upstream Release Manager** : This role is responsible for
> +  curating contributions into a branch, reviewing test results, and
> +  then sending a pull request during merge windows. There is a
> +  trust relationship between the release manager and Linus.
> +
> +- **Bug Triager** : Someone who is a first responder to bug reports
> +  submitted to the linux-nfs mailing list or bug trackers, and helps
> +  troubleshoot and identify next steps.
> +
> +- **Security Lead** : The security lead handles contacts from the
> +  security community to resolve immediate issues, as well as dealing
> +  with long-term security issues such as supply chain concerns. For
> +  upstream, that's usually whether contributions violate licensing
> +  or other intellectual property agreements.
> +
> +- **Testing Lead** : The testing lead builds and runs the test
> +  infrastructure for the subsystem. The testing lead may ask for
> +  patches to be dropped because of ongoing high defect rates.
> +
> +- **LTS Maintainer** : The LTS maintainer is responsible for managing
> +  the Fixes: and Cc: stable annotations on patches, and seeing that
> +  patches that cannot be automatically applied to LTS kernels get
> +  proper manual backports as necessary.
> +
> +- **Community Manager** : This umpire role can be asked to call balls
> +  and strikes during conflicts, but is also responsible for ensuring
> +  the health of the relationships within the community and for
> +  facilitating discussions on long-term topics such as how to manage
> +  growing technical debt.
> diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> index d36dd892a78a..6020d188e13d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -110,5 +110,6 @@ to do something different in the near future.
>     ../process/maintainer-netdev
>     ../driver-api/vfio-pci-device-specific-driver-acceptance
>     ../nvme/feature-and-quirk-policy
> +   ../filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile
>     ../filesystems/xfs/xfs-maintainer-entry-profile
>     ../mm/damon/maintainer-profile
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 46126ce2f968..981bb4eb5a8f 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -13541,6 +13541,7 @@ R:	Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>
>  R:	Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
>  L:	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
>  S:	Supported
> +P:	Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
>  B:	https://bugzilla.kernel.org
>  T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
>  F:	Documentation/filesystems/nfs/
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v5] NFSD: Add a subsystem policy document

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:09:58AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> 
> Steer contributors to NFSD's patchworks instance, list our patch
> submission preferences, and more. The new document is based on the
> existing netdev and xfs subsystem policy documents.
> 
> This is an attempt to add transparency to the process of accepting
> contributions to NFSD and getting them merged upstream.
> 
> Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

Dumb nit:  The period after the J means you have to enclose the whole
mess in quotations to be rfc822 compliant:

Suggested-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>

(and no, nobody gets this right, not even me for a large number of
years)

> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
> ---
>  .../nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst     | 545 ++++++++++++++++++
>  .../maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst   |   1 +
>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>  3 files changed, 547 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> 
> I'd like to apply this for v6.19. Can I get some R-b love? I promise
> not to change the document again until it is merged and we have
> actual version control.

Assuming you meant from the nfsd community, not really so much from me?

(They're the ones who have to choose to abide this doc)

((I'm going to rambl^Wreply anyway :P))

> Changes since v4:
> * Corrected the patchworks URL
> * Add Security Lead to list of maintainer roles
> 
> Changes since v3:
> * Add the "external reviewer" role
> * Mention the priority of interoperation with the Linux NFS client
> 
> Changes since v2:
> * Add a section related to NFSD administrative interfaces
> * Add a section on our observability preferences
> * Expand the "Feature requests" section
> 
> Changes since RFC:
> * Re-structured the "Patch Preparation" section
> * Added a mention of the term uber "maintainer" role
> * "Key Cycle Dates" renamed "Patch Acceptance"
> * Added description of the nfsd-fixes branch
> * Section on sensitive patches expanded
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..804dd365d3ca
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,545 @@
> +NFSD Maintainer Entry Profile
> +=============================
> +
> +A Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process
> +documents (found in Documentation/process/) with customs that are
> +specific to a subsystem and its maintainers. A contributor may use
> +this document to set their expectations and avoid common mistakes.
> +A maintainer may use these profiles to look across subsystems for
> +opportunities to converge on best common practices.
> +
> +Overview
> +--------
> +The Network File System (NFS) is a standardized family of network
> +protocols that enable access to files across a set of network-
> +connected peer hosts. Applications on NFS clients access files that
> +reside on file systems that are shared by NFS servers. A single
> +network peer can act as both an NFS client and an NFS server.
> +
> +NFSD refers to the NFS server implementation included in the Linux
> +kernel. An in-kernel NFS server has fast access to files stored
> +in file systems local to that server. NFSD can share files stored
> +on most of the file system types native to Linux, including xfs,
> +ext4, btrfs, and tmpfs.
> +
> +Mailing list
> +------------
> +The linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list is a public list. Its
> +purpose is to enable collaboration among developers working on the
> +Linux NFS stack, both client and server. It is not a place for
> +conversations that are not related directly to the Linux NFS stack.
> +
> +The linux-nfs mailing list is archived on lore.kernel.org.

Maybe a direct link to https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/ ?

I think the way you do that is:

The mailing list is archived on `lore.kernel.org <https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/>`_.

> +
> +The Linux NFS community does not have a Slack or IRC chat room.

"...does not have any chat room." ?

> +Reporting bugs
> +--------------
> +If you experience an NFSD-related bug on a distribution-built
> +kernel, please start by working with your Linux distributor.
> +
> +Bug reports against upstream Linux code bases are welcome on the
> +linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list, where some active triage
> +can be done. NFSD bugs may also be reported in the Linux kernel
> +community's bugzilla at:
> +
> +  https://bugzilla.kernel.org
> +
> +Please file NFSD-related bugs under the "Filesystems/NFSD"
> +component. In general, including as much detail as possible is a
> +good start, including pertinent system log messages from both
> +the client and server.
> +
> +For user space software related to NFSD, such as mountd or the
> +exportfs command, report problems on linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org.
> +You might be asked to move the report to a specific bug tracker.

I'm assuming that doesn't include ganesha?

> +
> +Contributor's Guide
> +-------------------
> +
> +Standards compliance
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +The priority is for NFSD to interoperate fully with the Linux NFS
> +client. We also test against other popular NFS client implementa-
> +tions regularly at NFS bake-a-thon events (also known as plug-
> +fests). Non-Linux NFS clients are not part of upstream NFSD CI/CD.
> +
> +The NFSD community strives to provide an NFS server implementation
> +that interoperates with all standards-compliant NFS client
> +implementations. This is done by staying as close as is sensible to
> +the normative mandates in the IETF's published NFS, RPC, and GSS-API
> +standards.

"as close as is sensible", heh. ;)

> +It is always useful to reference an RFC and section number in a code
> +comment where behavior deviates from the standard (and even when the
> +behavior is compliant but the implementation is obfuscatory).
> +
> +On the rare occasion when a deviation from standard-mandated
> +behavior is needed, brief documentation of the use case or
> +deficiencies in the standard is a required part of in-code
> +documentation.
> +
> +Care must always be taken to avoid leaking local error codes (ie,
> +errnos) to clients of NFSD. A proper NFS status code is always
> +required in NFS protocol replies.
> +
> +NFSD administrative interfaces
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +NFSD administrative interfaces include:
> +
> +- an NFSD or SUNRPC module parameter
> +
> +- export options in /etc/exports
> +
> +- files under /proc/fs/nfsd/ or /proc/sys/sunrpc/
> +
> +- the NFSD netlink protocol
> +
> +Frequently, a request is made to introduce or modify one of NFSD's
> +traditional administrative interfaces. Certainly it is technically
> +easy to introduce a new administrative setting. However, there are
> +good reasons why the NFSD maintainers prefer to leave that as a last
> +resort:
> +
> +- As with any API, administrative interfaces are difficult to get
> +  right.
> +
> +- Once they are documented and have a legacy of use, administrative
> +  interfaces become difficult to modify or remove.
> +
> +- Every new administrative setting multiplies the NFSD test matrix.
> +
> +- The cost of one administrative interface is incremental, but costs
> +  add up across all of the existing interfaces.
> +
> +It is often better for everyone if effort is made up front to
> +understanding the underlying requirement of the new setting, and
> +then trying to make it tune itself (or to become otherwise
> +unnecessary).
> +
> +If a new setting is indeed necessary, first consider adding it to
> +the NFSD netlink protocol. Or if it doesn't need to be a reliable
> +long term user space feature, it can be added to NFSD's menagerie of
> +experimental settings which reside under /sys/kernel/debug/nfsd/ .

<shudder>

> +Field observability
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +NFSD employs several different mechanisms for observing operation,
> +including counters, printks, WARNings, and static trace points. Each
> +have their strengths and weaknesses. Contributors should select the
> +most appropriate tool for their task.
> +
> +- BUG must be avoided if at all possible, as it will frequently
> +  result in a full system crash.
> +
> +- WARN is appropriate only when a full stack trace is useful.
> +
> +- printk can show detailed information. These must not be used
> +  in code paths where they can be triggered repeatedly by remote
> +  users.
> +
> +- dprintk can show detailed information, but can be enabled only
> +  in pre-set groups. The overhead of emitting output makes dprintk
> +  inappropriate for frequent operations like I/O.
> +
> +- Counters are always on, but provide little information about
> +  individual events other than how frequently they occur.
> +
> +- static trace points can be enabled individually or in groups
> +  (via a glob). These are generally low overhead, and thus are
> +  favored for use in hot paths.
> +
> +- dynamic tracing, such as kprobes or eBPF, are quite flexible but
> +  cannot be used in certain environments (eg, full kernel lock-
> +  down).
> +
> +Testing
> +~~~~~~~
> +The kdevops project
> +
> +  https://github.com/linux-kdevops/kdevops
> +
> +contains several NFS-specific workflows, as well as the community
> +standard fstests suite. These workflows are based on open source
> +testing tools such as ltp and fio. Contributors are encouraged to
> +use these tools without kdevops, or contributors should install and
> +use kdevops themselves to verify their patches before submission.

I'm curious, does that include recipes for running fstests over nfs?

> +Coding style
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Follow the coding style preferences described in
> +
> +  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +
> +with the following exceptions:
> +
> +- Add new local variables to a function in reverse Christmas tree
> +  order
> +
> +- Use the kdoc comment style for
> +  + non-static functions
> +  + static inline functions
> +  + static functions that are callbacks/virtual functions
> +
> +- All new function names start with "nfsd_" for non-NFS-version-
> +  specific functions.
> +
> +- New function names that are specific to NFSv2 or NFSv3, or are
> +  used by all minor versions of NFSv4, use "nfsdN_" where N is
> +  the version.
> +
> +- New function names specific to an NFSv4 minor version can be
> +  named with "nfsd4M_" where M is the minor version.
> +
> +Patch preparation
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Read and follow all guidelines in
> +
> +  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +
> +Use tagging to identify all patch authors. However, reviewers and
> +testers should be added by replying to the email patch submission.
> +Email is extensively used in order to publicly archive review and
> +testing attributions. These tags are automatically inserted into
> +your patches when they are applied.
> +
> +The code in the body of the diff already shows /what/ is being
> +changed. Thus it is not necessary to repeat that in the patch
> +description. Instead, the description should contain one or more
> +of:
> +
> +- A brief problem statement ("what is this patch trying to fix?")
> +  with a root-cause analysis.
> +
> +- End-user visible symptoms or items that a support engineer might
> +  use to search for the patch, like stack traces.
> +
> +- A brief explanation of why the patch is the best way to address
> +  the problem.
> +
> +- Any context that reviewers might need to understand the changes
> +  made by the patch.
> +
> +- Any relevant benchmarking results, and/or functional test results.
> +
> +As detailed in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
> +identify the point in history that the issue being addressed was
> +introduced by using a Fixes: tag.

That doesn't apply to new features, right?  Or are those "fixes" for
missing functionality?

> +Mention in the patch description if that point in history cannot be
> +determined -- that is, no Fixes: tag can be provided. In this case,
> +please make it clear to maintainers whether an LTS backport is
> +needed even though there is no Fixes: tag.
> +
> +The NFSD maintainers prefer to add stable tagging themselves, after
> +public discussion in response to the patch submission. Contributors
> +may suggest stable tagging, but be aware that many version
> +management tools add such stable Cc's when you post your patches.
> +Don't add "Cc: stable" unless you are absolutely sure the patch
> +needs to go to stable during the initial submission process.
> +
> +Patch submission
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Patches to NFSD are submitted via the kernel's email-based review
> +process that is common to most other kernel subsystems.
> +
> +Just before each submission, rebase your patch or series on the
> +nfsd-testing branch at
> +
> +  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
> +
> +The NFSD subsystem is maintained separately from the Linux in-kernel
> +NFS client. The NFSD maintainers do not normally take submissions
> +for client changes, nor can they respond authoritatively to bug
> +reports or feature requests for NFS client code.

Are Anna or Trond working on a similar profile for fs/nfs/?

Does this profile document cover fs/nfs_common/ ?

> +This means that contributors might be asked to resubmit patches if
> +they were emailed to the incorrect set of maintainers and reviewers.
> +This is not a rejection, but simply a correction of the submission
> +process.
> +
> +When in doubt, consult the NFSD entry in the MAINTAINERS file to
> +see which files and directories fall under the NFSD subsystem.
> +
> +The proper set of email addresses for NFSD patches are:
> +
> +To: the NFSD maintainers and reviewers listed in MAINTAINERS
> +Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and optionally linux-kernel@
> +
> +If there are other subsystems involved in the patches (for example
> +MM or RDMA) their primary mailing list address can be included in
> +the Cc: field. Other contributors and interested parties may be
> +included there as well.
> +
> +In general we prefer that contributors use common patch email tools
> +such as "git send-email" or "stg email format/send", which tend to
> +get the details right without a lot of fuss.
> +
> +A series consisting of a single patch is not required to have a
> +cover letter. However, a cover letter can be included if there is
> +substantial context that is not appropriate to include in the
> +patch description.
> +
> +Please note that cover letters are not part of the work that is
> +committed to the kernel source code base or its commit history.
> +Therefore always try to keep pertinent information in the patch
> +descriptions.

Are you willing to take pull requests from people with large patchsets?
If people sending PRs paste their cover letter into the tag, then you
effectively preserve that cover letter when you pull the branch.
Example:

First I started with:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/tag/?h=kconfig-2025-changes_2025-09-15

Then sent a PR to Carlos:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/175708766783.3403120.8622863816662379875.stg-ugh@frogsfrogsfrogs/

He merged it into his xfs for-next branch, which in turn is what Linus
pulled:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/fs/xfs?id=e90dcba0a350836a5e1a1ac0f65f9e74644d7d3b

[and no, it's not going splendidly :(]

> +Design documentation is welcome, but as cover letters are not
> +preserved, a perhaps better option is to include a patch that adds
> +such documentation under Documentation/filesystems/nfs/.

Agreed.

> +Reviewers will ask about test coverage and what use cases the
> +patches are expected to address. Please be prepared to answer these
> +questions.

...or just patchbomb the tests too. ;)

> +Review comments from maintainers might be politely stated, but in
> +general, these are not optional to address when they are actionable.
> +If necessary, the maintainers retain the right to not apply patches
> +when contributors refuse to address reasonable requests.
> +
> +Post changes to kernel source code and user space source code as
> +separate series. You can connect the two series with comments in
> +your cover letters.
> +
> +Generally the NFSD maintainers ask for a reposts even for simple
> +modifications in order to publicly archive the request and the
> +resulting repost before it is pulled into the NFSD trees. This
> +also enables us to rebuild a patch series quickly without missing
> +changes that might have been discussed via email.
> +
> +Avoid frequently reposting large series with only small changes. As
> +a rule of thumb, posting substantial changes more than once a week
> +will result in reviewer overload.
> +
> +Remember, there are only a handful of subsystem maintainers and
> +reviewers, but potentially many sources of contributions. The
> +maintainers and reviewers, therefore, are always the less scalable
> +resource. Be kind to your friendly neighborhood maintainer.

Or help them out and review some patches before you send your own large
series.

> +Patch Acceptance
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +There isn't a formal review process for NFSD, but we like to see
> +at least two Reviewed-by: notices for patches that are more than
> +simple clean-ups. Reviews are done in public on
> +linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and are archived on lore.kernel.org.
> +
> +Currently the NFSD patch queues are maintained in branches here:
> +
> +  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
> +
> +The NFSD maintainers apply patches initially to the nfsd-testing
> +branch, which is always open to new submissions. Patches can be
> +applied while review is ongoing. nfsd-testing is a topic branch,
> +so it can change frequently, it will be rebased, and your patch
> +might get dropped if there is a problem with it.
> +
> +Generally a script-generated "thank you" email will indicate when
> +your patch has been added to the nfsd-testing branch. You can track
> +the progress of your patch using the linux-nfs patchworks instance:
> +
> +  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-nfs/list/
> +
> +While your patch is in nfsd-testing, it is exposed to a variety of
> +test environments, including community zero-day bots, static
> +analysis tools, and NFSD continuous integration testing. The soak
> +period is three to four weeks.
> +
> +Each patch that survives in nfsd-testing for the soak period without
> +changes is moved to the nfsd-next branch.
> +
> +The nfsd-next branch is automatically merged into linux-next and
> +fs-next on a nightly basis.
> +
> +Patches that survive in nfsd-next are included in the next NFSD
> +merge window pull request. These windows occur once every eight
> +weeks.

I thought we were at every 63 days (i.e. 9 weeks)?

> +When the upstream merge window closes, the nfsd-next branch is
> +renamed nfsd-fixes, and a new nfsd-next branch is created, based on
> +the upstream -rc1 tag.
> +
> +Fixes that are destined for an upstream -rc release also run the
> +nfsd-testing gauntlet, but are then applied to the nfsd-fixes
> +branch. That branch is made available for Linus to pull after a
> +short time. In order to limit the risk of introducing regressions,
> +we limit such fixes to emergency situations or fixes to breakage
> +that occurred during the most recent upstream merge.
> +
> +Please make it clear when submitting an emergency patch that
> +immediate action (either application to -rc or LTS backport) is
> +needed.
> +
> +Sensitive patch submissions and bug reports
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +CVEs are generated by specific members of the Linux kernel community
> +and several external entities. The Linux NFS community does not emit
> +or assign CVEs. CVEs are assigned after an issue and its fix are
> +known.
> +
> +However, the NFSD maintainers sometimes receive sensitive security
> +reports, and at times these are significant enough to need to be
> +embargoed. In such rare cases, fixes can be developed and reviewed
> +out of the public eye.
> +
> +Please be aware that many version management tools add the stable
> +Cc's when you post your patches. This is generally a nuisance, but
> +it can result in outing an embargoed security issue accidentally.
> +Don't add "Cc: stable" unless you are absolutely sure the patch
> +needs to go to stable@ during the initial submission process.
> +
> +Patches that are merged without ever appearing on any list, and
> +which carry a Reported-by: or Fixes: tag are detected as suspicious
> +by security-focused people. We encourage that, after any private
> +review, security-sensitive patches should be posted to linux-nfs@
> +for the usual public review, archiving, and test period.
> +
> +LLM-generated submissions
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +The Linux kernel community as a whole is still exploring the new
> +world of LLM-generated code. The NFSD maintainers will entertain
> +submission of patches that are partially or wholly generated by
> +LLM-based development tools. Such submissions are held to the
> +same standards as submissions created entirely by human authors:
> +
> +- The human contributor identifies themselves via a Signed-off-by:
> +  tag. This tag counts as a DoC.
> +
> +- The human contributor is solely responsible for code provenance
> +  and any contamination by inadvertently-included code with a
> +  conflicting license, as usual.
> +
> +- The human contributor must be able to answer and address review
> +  questions. A patch description such as "This fixed my problem
> +  but I don't know why" is not acceptable.
> +
> +- The contribution is subjected to the same test regimen as all
> +  other submissions.
> +
> +- An indication (via a Generated-by: tag or otherwise) that the
> +  contribution is LLM-generated is not required.
> +
> +It is easy to address review comments and fix requests in LLM
> +generated code. So easy, in fact, that it becomes tempting to repost
> +refreshed code immediately. Please resist that temptation.
> +
> +As always, please do not repost patches frequently.

I would be more specific ("do not repost more than once per week") about
this.

> +Clean-up patches
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +The NFSD maintainers discourage patches which perform simple clean-
> +ups, which are not in the context of other work. For example:
> +
> +* Addressing ``checkpatch.pl`` warnings after merge
> +* Addressing :ref:`Local variable ordering<rcs>` issues
> +* Addressing long-standing whitespace damage
> +
> +This is because it is felt that the churn that such changes produce
> +comes at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups.
> +
> +Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are encouraged.
> +
> +Stable and LTS support
> +----------------------
> +Upstream NFSD continuous integration testing runs against LTS trees
> +whenever they are updated.
> +
> +Please indicate when a patch containing a fix needs to be considered
> +for LTS kernels, either via a Fixes: tag or explicit mention.
> +
> +Feature requests
> +----------------
> +There is no one way to make an official feature request, but
> +discussion about the request should eventually make its way to
> +the linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list for public review by
> +the community.
> +
> +Subsystem boundaries
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +NFSD itself is not much more than a protocol engine. This means its
> +primary responsibility is to translate the NFS protocol into API
> +calls in the Linux kernel. For example, NFSD is not responsible for
> +knowing exactly how bytes or file attributes are managed on a block
> +device. It relies on other kernel subsystems for that.
> +
> +If the subsystems on which NFSD relies do not implement a particular
> +feature, even if the standard NFS protocols do support that feature,
> +that usually means NFSD cannot provide that feature without
> +substantial development work in other areas of the kernel.
> +
> +Specificity
> +~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Feature requests can come from anywhere, and thus can often be
> +nebulous. A requester might not understand what a "use case" or
> +"user story" is. These descriptive paradigms are often used by
> +developers and architects to understand what is required of a
> +design, but are terms of art in the software trade, not used in
> +the everyday world.
> +
> +In order to prevent contributors and maintainers from becoming
> +overwhelmed, we won't be afraid of saying "no" politely to
> +underspecified requests.
> +
> +Community roles and their authority
> +-----------------------------------
> +The purpose of Linux subsystem communities is to provide expertise
> +and active stewardship of a narrow set of source files in the Linux
> +kernel. This can include managing user space tooling as well.
> +
> +To contextualize the structure of the Linux NFS community that
> +is responsible for stewardship of the NFS server code base, we
> +define the community roles here.
> +
> +- **Contributor** : Anyone who submits a code change, bug fix,
> +  recommendation, documentation fix, and so on. A contributor can
> +  submit regularly or infrequently.
> +
> +- **Outside Contributor** : A contributor who is not a regular actor
> +  in the Linux NFS community. This can mean someone who contributes
> +  to other parts of the kernel, or someone who just noticed a
> +  misspelling in a comment and sent a patch.
> +
> +- **Reviewer** : Someone who is named in the MAINTAINERS file as a
> +  reviewer is an area expert who can request changes to contributed
> +  code, and expects that contributors will address the request.
> +
> +- **External Reviewer** : Someone who is not named in the
> +  MAINTAINERS file as a reviewer, but who is an area expert.
> +  Examples include Linux kernel contributors with networking,
> +  security, or persistent storage expertise, or developers who
> +  contribute primarily to other NFS implementations.
> +
> +One or more people will take on the following roles. These people
> +are often generically referred to as "maintainers", and are
> +identified in the MAINTAINERS file with the "M:" tag under the NFSD
> +subsystem.
> +
> +- **Upstream Release Manager** : This role is responsible for
> +  curating contributions into a branch, reviewing test results, and
> +  then sending a pull request during merge windows. There is a
> +  trust relationship between the release manager and Linus.
> +
> +- **Bug Triager** : Someone who is a first responder to bug reports
> +  submitted to the linux-nfs mailing list or bug trackers, and helps
> +  troubleshoot and identify next steps.
> +
> +- **Security Lead** : The security lead handles contacts from the
> +  security community to resolve immediate issues, as well as dealing
> +  with long-term security issues such as supply chain concerns. For
> +  upstream, that's usually whether contributions violate licensing
> +  or other intellectual property agreements.
> +
> +- **Testing Lead** : The testing lead builds and runs the test
> +  infrastructure for the subsystem. The testing lead may ask for
> +  patches to be dropped because of ongoing high defect rates.
> +
> +- **LTS Maintainer** : The LTS maintainer is responsible for managing
> +  the Fixes: and Cc: stable annotations on patches, and seeing that
> +  patches that cannot be automatically applied to LTS kernels get
> +  proper manual backports as necessary.
> +
> +- **Community Manager** : This umpire role can be asked to call balls
> +  and strikes during conflicts, but is also responsible for ensuring
> +  the health of the relationships within the community and for
> +  facilitating discussions on long-term topics such as how to manage
> +  growing technical debt.

Seems reasonable to me; I hope there's enough people in your community
to fill out these roles.

--D

> diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> index d36dd892a78a..6020d188e13d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
> @@ -110,5 +110,6 @@ to do something different in the near future.
>     ../process/maintainer-netdev
>     ../driver-api/vfio-pci-device-specific-driver-acceptance
>     ../nvme/feature-and-quirk-policy
> +   ../filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile
>     ../filesystems/xfs/xfs-maintainer-entry-profile
>     ../mm/damon/maintainer-profile
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 46126ce2f968..981bb4eb5a8f 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -13541,6 +13541,7 @@ R:	Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>
>  R:	Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
>  L:	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
>  S:	Supported
> +P:	Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
>  B:	https://bugzilla.kernel.org
>  T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git
>  F:	Documentation/filesystems/nfs/
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

Re: [PATCH v5] NFSD: Add a subsystem policy document

[Chuck Lever]

On 10/14/25 7:58 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:09:58AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>>
>> Steer contributors to NFSD's patchworks instance, list our patch
>> submission preferences, and more. The new document is based on the
>> existing netdev and xfs subsystem policy documents.
>>
>> This is an attempt to add transparency to the process of accepting
>> contributions to NFSD and getting them merged upstream.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> 
> Dumb nit:  The period after the J means you have to enclose the whole
> mess in quotations to be rfc822 compliant:
> 
> Suggested-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> 
> (and no, nobody gets this right, not even me for a large number of
> years)
> 
>> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>  .../nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst     | 545 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  .../maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst   |   1 +
>>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>>  3 files changed, 547 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/nfs/nfsd-maintainer-entry-profile.rst
>>
>> I'd like to apply this for v6.19. Can I get some R-b love? I promise
>> not to change the document again until it is merged and we have
>> actual version control.
> 
> Assuming you meant from the nfsd community, not really so much from me?

Anyone is welcome to give an R-b. Thanks for your review! I have one
or two responses below.


>> +Reporting bugs
>> +--------------
>> +If you experience an NFSD-related bug on a distribution-built
>> +kernel, please start by working with your Linux distributor.
>> +
>> +Bug reports against upstream Linux code bases are welcome on the
>> +linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org mailing list, where some active triage
>> +can be done. NFSD bugs may also be reported in the Linux kernel
>> +community's bugzilla at:
>> +
>> +  https://bugzilla.kernel.org
>> +
>> +Please file NFSD-related bugs under the "Filesystems/NFSD"
>> +component. In general, including as much detail as possible is a
>> +good start, including pertinent system log messages from both
>> +the client and server.
>> +
>> +For user space software related to NFSD, such as mountd or the
>> +exportfs command, report problems on linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org.
>> +You might be asked to move the report to a specific bug tracker.
> 
> I'm assuming that doesn't include ganesha?

NFS/Ganesha is a completely separate NFS server implementation.
What I'm referring to here is the user space components that NFSD
relies on, as packaged in nfs-utils. I'll update this paragraph
to be more specific.


>> +Testing
>> +~~~~~~~
>> +The kdevops project
>> +
>> +  https://github.com/linux-kdevops/kdevops
>> +
>> +contains several NFS-specific workflows, as well as the community
>> +standard fstests suite. These workflows are based on open source
>> +testing tools such as ltp and fio. Contributors are encouraged to
>> +use these tools without kdevops, or contributors should install and
>> +use kdevops themselves to verify their patches before submission.
> 
> I'm curious, does that include recipes for running fstests over nfs?

Absolutely.

There are five kdevops workflows I currently run for NFSD on upstream
and LTS kernels:

- fstests with scratch device
- the git regression suite
- ltp (ti-rpc and notify, at least)
- Jorge Mora's nfstest suite
- pynfs

These can all be run with xfs, ext4, btrfs, or tmpfs underlying the
NFS exports. But right now I pick a single local filesystem type for
each kernel release to keep the test matrix manageable.


>> +The code in the body of the diff already shows /what/ is being
>> +changed. Thus it is not necessary to repeat that in the patch
>> +description. Instead, the description should contain one or more
>> +of:
>> +
>> +- A brief problem statement ("what is this patch trying to fix?")
>> +  with a root-cause analysis.
>> +
>> +- End-user visible symptoms or items that a support engineer might
>> +  use to search for the patch, like stack traces.
>> +
>> +- A brief explanation of why the patch is the best way to address
>> +  the problem.
>> +
>> +- Any context that reviewers might need to understand the changes
>> +  made by the patch.
>> +
>> +- Any relevant benchmarking results, and/or functional test results.
>> +
>> +As detailed in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
>> +identify the point in history that the issue being addressed was
>> +introduced by using a Fixes: tag.
> 
> That doesn't apply to new features, right?  Or are those "fixes" for
> missing functionality?

Sometimes a new feature is needed to address a bug. So, I think a
Fixes: tag is sometimes appropriate even for patches that introduce
features.


> Are Anna or Trond working on a similar profile for fs/nfs/?

Not that I'm aware of.


> Does this profile document cover fs/nfs_common/ ?

It could, if that's listed under the NFSD paragraph in MAINTAINERS.


>> +This means that contributors might be asked to resubmit patches if
>> +they were emailed to the incorrect set of maintainers and reviewers.
>> +This is not a rejection, but simply a correction of the submission
>> +process.
>> +
>> +When in doubt, consult the NFSD entry in the MAINTAINERS file to
>> +see which files and directories fall under the NFSD subsystem.
>> +
>> +The proper set of email addresses for NFSD patches are:
>> +
>> +To: the NFSD maintainers and reviewers listed in MAINTAINERS
>> +Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org and optionally linux-kernel@
>> +
>> +If there are other subsystems involved in the patches (for example
>> +MM or RDMA) their primary mailing list address can be included in
>> +the Cc: field. Other contributors and interested parties may be
>> +included there as well.
>> +
>> +In general we prefer that contributors use common patch email tools
>> +such as "git send-email" or "stg email format/send", which tend to
>> +get the details right without a lot of fuss.
>> +
>> +A series consisting of a single patch is not required to have a
>> +cover letter. However, a cover letter can be included if there is
>> +substantial context that is not appropriate to include in the
>> +patch description.
>> +
>> +Please note that cover letters are not part of the work that is
>> +committed to the kernel source code base or its commit history.
>> +Therefore always try to keep pertinent information in the patch
>> +descriptions.
> 
> Are you willing to take pull requests from people with large patchsets?

Generally we prefer patches to go through the mailing list, as Linus
(and others) will look for author/commit dates and such to match
against email post dates, and because R-b and other tags are pulled in
automatically.

Also, if there's a bug to be reported, posters like to Reply-To the
email patch submission, which would be missing for a pull request
style ingestion.

I'm sure that at some point in the future I will lunch on all of these
words.


> If people sending PRs paste their cover letter into the tag, then you
> effectively preserve that cover letter when you pull the branch.
> Example:
> 
> First I started with:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/tag/?h=kconfig-2025-changes_2025-09-15
> 
> Then sent a PR to Carlos:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/175708766783.3403120.8622863816662379875.stg-ugh@frogsfrogsfrogs/
> 
> He merged it into his xfs for-next branch, which in turn is what Linus
> pulled:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/fs/xfs?id=e90dcba0a350836a5e1a1ac0f65f9e74644d7d3b
> 
> [and no, it's not going splendidly :(]

I noticed Linus' recent suggestion about ingesting cover letters as
merge commit messages. I might use this mechanism to construct nfsd-next
in the future.

But generally I'm not crazy about adding even more complexity to the
kernel's merge graph this way.


>> +Patches that survive in nfsd-next are included in the next NFSD
>> +merge window pull request. These windows occur once every eight
>> +weeks.
> 
> I thought we were at every 63 days (i.e. 9 weeks)?

Ja. Oops. I will fix this.


>> +Community roles and their authority
>> +-----------------------------------
>> +The purpose of Linux subsystem communities is to provide expertise
>> +and active stewardship of a narrow set of source files in the Linux
>> +kernel. This can include managing user space tooling as well.
>> +
>> +To contextualize the structure of the Linux NFS community that
>> +is responsible for stewardship of the NFS server code base, we
>> +define the community roles here.
>> +
>> +- **Contributor** : Anyone who submits a code change, bug fix,
>> +  recommendation, documentation fix, and so on. A contributor can
>> +  submit regularly or infrequently.
>> +
>> +- **Outside Contributor** : A contributor who is not a regular actor
>> +  in the Linux NFS community. This can mean someone who contributes
>> +  to other parts of the kernel, or someone who just noticed a
>> +  misspelling in a comment and sent a patch.
>> +
>> +- **Reviewer** : Someone who is named in the MAINTAINERS file as a
>> +  reviewer is an area expert who can request changes to contributed
>> +  code, and expects that contributors will address the request.
>> +
>> +- **External Reviewer** : Someone who is not named in the
>> +  MAINTAINERS file as a reviewer, but who is an area expert.
>> +  Examples include Linux kernel contributors with networking,
>> +  security, or persistent storage expertise, or developers who
>> +  contribute primarily to other NFS implementations.
>> +
>> +One or more people will take on the following roles. These people
>> +are often generically referred to as "maintainers", and are
>> +identified in the MAINTAINERS file with the "M:" tag under the NFSD
>> +subsystem.
>> +
>> +- **Upstream Release Manager** : This role is responsible for
>> +  curating contributions into a branch, reviewing test results, and
>> +  then sending a pull request during merge windows. There is a
>> +  trust relationship between the release manager and Linus.
>> +
>> +- **Bug Triager** : Someone who is a first responder to bug reports
>> +  submitted to the linux-nfs mailing list or bug trackers, and helps
>> +  troubleshoot and identify next steps.
>> +
>> +- **Security Lead** : The security lead handles contacts from the
>> +  security community to resolve immediate issues, as well as dealing
>> +  with long-term security issues such as supply chain concerns. For
>> +  upstream, that's usually whether contributions violate licensing
>> +  or other intellectual property agreements.
>> +
>> +- **Testing Lead** : The testing lead builds and runs the test
>> +  infrastructure for the subsystem. The testing lead may ask for
>> +  patches to be dropped because of ongoing high defect rates.
>> +
>> +- **LTS Maintainer** : The LTS maintainer is responsible for managing
>> +  the Fixes: and Cc: stable annotations on patches, and seeing that
>> +  patches that cannot be automatically applied to LTS kernels get
>> +  proper manual backports as necessary.
>> +
>> +- **Community Manager** : This umpire role can be asked to call balls
>> +  and strikes during conflicts, but is also responsible for ensuring
>> +  the health of the relationships within the community and for
>> +  facilitating discussions on long-term topics such as how to manage
>> +  growing technical debt.
> 
> Seems reasonable to me; I hope there's enough people in your community
> to fill out these roles.

Not likely ;-) But it's great to have the housekeeping documented
somewhere. Thanks for getting this started.


-- 
Chuck Lever