From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462AA379C3D for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 18:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781722402; cv=none; b=VBCMFTdSPLQx3sOohVCrxh+EG2kqpvjMGDohvSwEN3WEV+fycKQW+etV73iuydx6Ble7bWEf+CzDvMCQoYwj4bj7UbwM8NBHiIDe8tkB/Tb+Mg+gszNrP4E45y2tpxrNpSeVfFgdArQfhzlBznaBJwS5N1YcmfV4Ci4Y8MlZeXY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781722402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jOzXJ38G62+ejotyN1Zn/QiYLNngaoanJuA6DTjVR2g=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FSyIel6PZ2xi/G/SYFFaBiNi5TzE0uBohe2UDD/r7r4XEhOg+OZdHZ70IIgImTgvgR2x708wSancCPAYpRwxT54qBjaC6FT3ve/OGWgcBVgx2+ile2TJZ1drRxmj/eZwyDu8nXxl0gVrfIHWPpciwJDHoS5DNYUmUWEBfq8entE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FnBgHNnm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FnBgHNnm" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2AA31F000E9 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2026 18:53:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781722401; bh=2jkmPASWSejKP+NLZalrA/3K/g3cgH/gJEwyOOWqgzI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject; b=FnBgHNnmptBWxegekq4GvRwmE9p1SXsphjhu1IDke3A7YnQfwkIeIgOrxxslgnAfO GJSPlFLAWoBf7Kzk1LKvitoF/OgPY3w+fa5tdszGOWxMGTuMAC+1dHVEPcFeCCi2EM atU1jvGIpbm70aELqh2wnNYOKq0xyn+Q8vnihvOFczAP8r12KeoYXggm6XPpmFCtxI IhHiG8PQpQtnll3bGUgSWkRDQ5Ji/TxLAKrarbPbHnHFvIny7Xgeaf25jwa15JVMjD v2mhnoPvUiP8yXFHFh6G8c1IbKyRMC7AZD+gvWSQpKx6Y/YWA7QVhi06OI883wYqXB hYYMs6leC7wDw== Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 11:53:19 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: [ANN] netdev development stats for 7.2 Message-ID: <20260617115319.43a5942d@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Intro ----- As is tradition here are the development statistics based on mailing list traffic on netdev@vger. These stats are somewhat like LWN stats: https://lwn.net/Articles/1004998/ but more focused on mailing list participation. And by participation we mean reviewing code more than producing patches. In particular "review score" tries to capture the balance between reviewing other people's code vs posting patches. It's roughly number of patches reviewed minus number of patches posted. Those who post more than they review will have a negative score. Previous 3 reports: - for 6.19: https://lore.kernel.org/20251202175548.6b5eb80e@kernel.org - for 7.0: https://lore.kernel.org/20260212124208.187e53ae@kernel.org - for 7.1: https://lore.kernel.org/20260414182653.40d84ccc@kernel.org General stats ------------- The increase in traffic continues. Reading the stats below keep in mind that the previous release to which we're comparing was already a record release in every aspect. We saw an average of 339 emails a day on netdev, which is +6.5% compared to the 7.1 cycle. Number of commits merged by netdev maintainers directly grew even faster to 29 / day (+20.9%) compared to the previous release. The commit growth is similar to growth of linux-next as a whole (+22.6%). There were 1011 individuals posting code or participating in discussions (+15.7%). Review percentage continues to slip, from 53.36% in previous release to 50.84% in the current release. Average revisions of a patch went down to 1.38 (-4.9%) for single posting, and down to 2.13 (-2.9%) for multi-patch series. These are approximate since I'm not sure I trust our series tracking with folks renaming series across revisions. One more factor to keep in mind is that we include in the stat only patch sets which were merged. Last but not least since we try to prioritize patches from active reviewers we tend to commit more patches from experts who rarely need revisions (*cough* Eric) than new comes who need a lot of help. Tenure histograms ----------------- Tenure histograms are meant to measure how well we're doing at converting one-off contributors to long term community members. "no commit" means that someone posted a patch but no commit was found under their name in git. Time since poster's first commit in 6.18 no commit | 76 | ******************************* 0- 3mo | 33 | ************** 3- 6mo | 18 | ******* 6mo-1yr | 30 | ************ Time since poster's first commit in 7.1 no commit | 107 | ******************************************** 0- 3mo | 61 | ************************* 3- 6mo | 15 | ****** 6mo-1yr | 29 | ************ Time since poster's first commit in 7.2 no commit | 130 | ***************************************************** 0- 3mo | 95 | ************************************** 3- 6mo | 25 | ********* 6mo-1yr | 34 | ************ The 0-3mo bucket are pretty much people who had the first commit in 7.2. The 3-6mo bucket can be viewed as people who stuck around for 2 releases. It seems like the number of one-off contributors is growing by 50% release to release, with retention dropping. We shall have a more definite signal after the next release cycle. AI reviews ---------- I suspect we are more or less accustomed to the reviews now. Sashiko has been updated to mark the pre-existing issues more explicitly which is very helpful. The overall quality of the reviews still leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to driver code. I have been waiting to get access to OpenAI GPT models. In local use, having the models cross review each others work drives down the false positives noticeably. Unfortunately, the model access is getting restricted. For those working at large corporations, at least, LLM inference used to be a matter of adding a service to a cloud account. Since we had a CI for netdev adding LLMs was easy. Now, paperwork and policies prevent us / me from accessing GPT. Anthropic made Fable available with 30 day prompt retention, which, of course, also got it blocked in most corps. We used to be ahead of the game with Chris's and Roman's effort. Now it feels like (some would say subsidized) $20 LLM subscription buys much more LLM access than we can access in our CIs. Ironically, I think this is the inverse of the problem some in the community were predicting (individual contributors will have hard time because corps will have access to very powerful models). Of course, things change very fast, they may be proven right tomorrow. Testing ------- I was complaining that the number of patches to selftests remains at 10%, this release shows that things can be worse. The fraction of patches adding tests dropped to 8% (-2%), from 152 -> 147 patches. On the other hand it's great to see others take the #1 and #2 slots! Thanks Allison and Matthieu! Contributions to selftests: 1 [ 27] Allison Henderson 2 [ 13] Matthieu Baerts 3 [ 13] Jakub Kicinski 4 [ 9] Victor Nogueira 5 [ 8] Bobby Eshleman 6 [ 7] Wei Wang 7 [ 6] Minxi Hou 8 [ 6] Willem de Bruijn 9 [ 4] Daniel Borkmann 10 [ 4] Fernando Fernandez Mancera 11 [ 4] Ido Schimmel 12 [ 4] Tushar Vyavahare 13 [ 4] Qingfang Deng In the last report I mentioned that we started testing on real HW. I can think of at least 3 bugs we caught using our HW CI. Developer rankings ------------------ Top reviewers (cs): Top reviewers (msg): 1 ( ) [50] Jakub Kicinski 1 ( ) [116] Jakub Kicinski 2 ( ) [27] Simon Horman 2 ( +1) [ 53] Andrew Lunn 3 ( ) [21] Andrew Lunn 3 ( -1) [ 42] Simon Horman 4 ( ) [18] Paolo Abeni 4 ( ) [ 30] Paolo Abeni 5 ( ) [11] Eric Dumazet 5 ( ) [ 17] Eric Dumazet 6 (+10) [ 7] Ido Schimmel 6 ( +7) [ 12] Ido Schimmel 7 (+13) [ 6] Jacob Keller 7 (+31) [ 12] David Laight 8 (+20) [ 6] David Laight 8 ( -1) [ 12] Aleksandr Loktionov 9 ( -3) [ 5] Kuniyuki Iwashima 9 (+27) [ 11] Jacob Keller 10 ( -2) [ 5] Aleksandr Loktionov 10 ( -2) [ 10] Kuniyuki Iwashima 11 (+32) [ 5] Jiayuan Chen 11 (+22) [ 10] Stanislav Fomichev 12 ( -2) [ 4] Krzysztof Kozlowski 12 ( -3) [ 9] Willem de Bruijn 13 ( +2) [ 4] Maxime Chevallier 13 ( +4) [ 8] Maxime Chevallier 14 (+44) [ 4] Alexander Lobakin 14 ( -2) [ 8] Sabrina Dubroca 15 ( -6) [ 3] Willem de Bruijn 15 (+12) [ 8] Nikolay Aleksandrov The number of people stepping up to help with reviews is definitely a bright spot in the patch avalanche. We have some gaps, of course, but there's quite a few people I can tell are intentionally helping out. Thank you all so much! Individual shout outs this cycle go to.. Ido who recently became a L3 (IPv4/IPv6 etc) co-maintainer, but is also helping in other areas. Intel folks (Jake, Olek, Aleks) stepped up driver reviews after a brief absence ;) Since Ido works at nVidia, we are now in a position where the two biggest vendor-contributors are solidly "in the green" when it comes to review / authorship balance! Jiayuan Chen has been helping review and triage a lot of security / bug reports. We're really glad to see this progress, keep it up! Also big thanks to Maxime, without Maxime we would be in a pretty bad place in phylink / embedded reviews now that Russell (hopefully temporarily?) stepped away from this work. Top authors (cs): Top authors (msg): 1 ( ) [11] Eric Dumazet 1 ( +1) [30] Eric Dumazet 2 ( ) [ 6] Jakub Kicinski 2 ( +3) [27] Tariq Toukan 3 ( +4) [ 4] Tariq Toukan 3 ( +4) [24] Jakub Kicinski 4 ( +2) [ 4] Lorenzo Bianconi 4 (+13) [24] Wei Fang 5 (***) [ 4] Selvamani Rajagopal 5 (+41) [19] Pablo Neira Ayuso 6 ( +7) [ 3] Weiming Shi 6 (+13) [18] Lorenzo Bianconi 7 ( +2) [ 3] Kuniyuki Iwashima 7 ( -3) [18] Kuniyuki Iwashima 8 (***) [ 3] Michael Bommarito 8 (+13) [17] Ratheesh Kannoth 9 ( +9) [ 3] Rosen Penev 9 (***) [15] Breno Leitao 10 (***) [ 3] David Laight 10 (***) [13] javen 11 (***) [ 2] Wentao Liang 11 (***) [12] Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca 12 (+40) [ 2] Breno Leitao 12 (+24) [12] Chuck Lever 13 (***) [ 2] Samuel Moelius 13 (***) [11] Matthieu Baerts 14 ( -3) [ 2] David Carlier 14 (***) [11] Simon Wunderlich 15 (***) [ 2] Ren Wei 15 (***) [10] Jason Xing With some exceptions the "top authors by message" is populated with folks who needed a lot of revisions of large series. On the change set side we have a mix of core work (Eric, Jakub, Kuniyuki), vendor submissions (Tariq, Selvamani), refactoring (Breno), "cleanups" (David L, Rosen), presumably AI-driven fixes (Weiming, Wentao, Michael B, Samuel M, Ren Wei, David C). Top scores (positive): Top scores (negative): 1 ( ) [768] Jakub Kicinski 1 ( +1) [91] Tariq Toukan 2 ( ) [376] Simon Horman 2 ( +8) [86] Wei Fang 3 ( ) [346] Andrew Lunn 3 ( +4) [67] Ratheesh Kannoth 4 ( ) [265] Paolo Abeni 4 (***) [54] javen 5 ( +4) [ 91] Ido Schimmel 5 ( +6) [49] Lorenzo Bianconi 6 (+14) [ 74] David Laight 6 (***) [48] Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca 7 ( ) [ 62] Krzysztof Kozlowski 7 (***) [43] Simon Wunderlich 8 ( +2) [ 57] Aleksandr Loktionov 8 (***) [38] Chuck Lever 9 (+12) [ 50] Nikolay Aleksandrov 9 (+18) [38] Grzegorz Nitka 10 ( -4) [ 49] Willem de Bruijn 10 (***) [35] Pablo Neira Ayuso 11 ( +3) [ 49] Sabrina Dubroca 11 (***) [35] Markus Stockhausen 12 (+41) [ 47] Alexander Lobakin 12 (***) [34] Selvamani Rajagopal 13 (+24) [ 47] Maxime Chevallier 13 (***) [34] Jason Xing 14 ( -6) [ 46] David Ahern 14 ( -8) [33] Illusion Wang 15 (***) [ 43] Jiayuan Chen 15 (***) [30] Minxi Hou One process note on the reviewer score. Tariq tops the negative list. I've been returning to the question of whether it's fair since he has to handle submissions of most of nVidia's patches. Still, I don't understand why reading thru the list and reviewing one patchset from another company a day is too much to ask. Company rankings ---------------- Top reviewers (cs): Top reviewers (msg): 1 ( ) [54] Meta 1 ( ) [135] Meta 2 ( ) [53] RedHat 2 ( ) [109] RedHat 3 ( +2) [21] Andrew Lunn 3 ( +2) [ 53] Andrew Lunn 4 ( ) [19] Intel 4 ( ) [ 46] Intel 5 ( -2) [18] Google 5 ( -2) [ 42] Google 6 ( ) [17] nVidia 6 ( ) [ 37] nVidia 7 (+12) [ 6] David Laight 7 (+15) [ 12] David Laight 8 ( +2) [ 5] Bootlin 8 ( +1) [ 11] SUSE 9 ( -1) [ 5] Linaro 9 ( -1) [ 11] Linaro Top authors (cs): Top authors (msg): 1 ( ) [19] Google 1 ( ) [88] Meta 2 ( +1) [14] Meta 2 ( +1) [70] Google 3 ( -1) [12] RedHat 3 ( +1) [69] Intel 4 ( ) [12] Intel 4 ( -2) [56] RedHat 5 ( +1) [ 9] nVidia 5 ( +1) [54] nVidia 6 ( +1) [ 4] Microsoft 6 ( +1) [38] NXP 7 (***) [ 4] Onsemi 7 (+10) [26] Marvell 8 (+10) [ 3] Weiming Shi 8 ( +2) [23] Qualcomm 9 (***) [ 3] Michael Bommarito 9 ( -1) [21] Microsoft Top scores (positive): Top scores (negative): 1 ( +1) [616] RedHat 1 ( ) [133] NXP 2 ( -1) [608] Meta 2 ( +7) [ 95] Marvell 3 ( ) [346] Andrew Lunn 3 ( +3) [ 63] Qualcomm 4 ( +4) [ 74] David Laight 4 (***) [ 54] Realsil 5 (+28) [ 58] nVidia 5 (***) [ 48] Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca 6 ( -1) [ 46] Linux Foundation 6 (***) [ 43] Simon Wunderlich & co. 7 ( -3) [ 42] Linaro 7 ( +7) [ 41] AMD 8 (***) [ 37] Shopee 8 ( -6) [ 35] Microsoft 9 ( +1) [ 36] ARM 9 ( +3) [ 35] Oracle As already mentioned nVidia moves to the green zone. Shopee is Jiayuan Chen. ARM and Linaro are device tree reviewers. The negative side is primarily HW vendors dumping code. Without Vladimir's participation NXP takes the smelly cake. Marvell is not much better (less bad?). A reminder that we rank patches for maintainer review based on the "review standing" of the submitter and their company. This used to matter much less, because historically I'd try to keep the number of patches in patchwork around 100 at the end of each day. These days it feels impossible to get it to 200, because we receive over 150 patches every working day. If you think maintainers take forever to look at your code - it's probably your review standing. -- Code: https://github.com/kuba-moo/ml-stat Raw output: https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/ml-stats/stats-7.2