* Re: [PATCH] coding-style: fix verb typo
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-11-03 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriele Ricciardi; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel, Gabriele Ricciardi
In-Reply-To: <20251101223027.171874-1-gricciardi-coding@pm.me>
Gabriele Ricciardi <gricciardi-coding@pm.me> writes:
> In the Identation section there is a list of instructions in
> second-person. The offending line uses third-person singular.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Ricciardi <gricciardi-coding@pm.me>
> ---
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index d1a8e5465ed9..2969ca378dbb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ Don't use commas to avoid using braces:
> if (condition)
> do_this(), do_that();
>
> -Always uses braces for multiple statements:
> +Always use braces for multiple statements:
>
> .. code-block:: c
Applied, thanks.
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] coding-style: fix verb typo
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2025-11-02 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriele Ricciardi, corbet; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <20251101223027.171874-1-gricciardi-coding@pm.me>
On 11/1/25 3:31 PM, Gabriele Ricciardi wrote:
> In the Identation section there is a list of instructions in
> second-person. The offending line uses third-person singular.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Ricciardi <gricciardi-coding@pm.me>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Thanks.
> ---
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index d1a8e5465ed9..2969ca378dbb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ Don't use commas to avoid using braces:
> if (condition)
> do_this(), do_that();
>
> -Always uses braces for multiple statements:
> +Always use braces for multiple statements:
>
> .. code-block:: c
>
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH] coding-style: fix verb typo
From: Gabriele Ricciardi @ 2025-11-01 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: corbet; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel, Gabriele Ricciardi
In the Identation section there is a list of instructions in
second-person. The offending line uses third-person singular.
Signed-off-by: Gabriele Ricciardi <gricciardi-coding@pm.me>
---
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index d1a8e5465ed9..2969ca378dbb 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ Don't use commas to avoid using braces:
if (condition)
do_this(), do_that();
-Always uses braces for multiple statements:
+Always use braces for multiple statements:
.. code-block:: c
--
2.51.2
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: process: Also mention Sasha Levin as stable tree maintainer
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-29 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bagas Sanjaya, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Documentation,
Linux Kernel Workflows
Cc: Randy Dunlap, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Sasha Levin, Bagas Sanjaya,
stable
In-Reply-To: <20251022034336.22839-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes:
> Sasha has also maintaining stable branch in conjunction with Greg
> since cb5d21946d2a2f ("MAINTAINERS: Add Sasha as a stable branch
> maintainer"). Mention him in 2.Process.rst.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> ---
> Documentation/process/2.Process.rst | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
> index 8e63d171767db8..7bd41838a5464f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
> @@ -99,8 +99,10 @@ go out with a handful of known regressions, though, hopefully, none of them
> are serious.
>
> Once a stable release is made, its ongoing maintenance is passed off to the
> -"stable team," currently Greg Kroah-Hartman. The stable team will release
> -occasional updates to the stable release using the 9.x.y numbering scheme.
> +"stable team," currently consists of Greg Kroah-Hartman and Sasha Levin. The
> +stable team will release occasional updates to the stable release using the
> +9.x.y numbering scheme.
> +
> To be considered for an update release, a patch must (1) fix a significant
Applied, thanks.
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 10/30] docs: reporting-issues: move 'check tainted flag' upwards
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-28 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <93cac5463d1e51b57b7cf74181397039137bcdb5.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Move text around to improve diffability in the follow-up patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 142 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
Seems fine.
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 09/30] docs: reporting-issues: tell users to check the kernel log
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-28 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <a5be8e9822bbc1268efc3cad9485d8d926261a90.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Sometimes what looks like a kernel bug is actually some local problem
> the kernel's log messages explain, thus it is best if users check it
> early in the process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
Seems fine.
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 08/30] docs: reporting-issues: add step about processing issues separately
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-28 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <9b6e279c9d11eefe7ff01672a054783dbf651bc0.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Create a separate step covering 'process and report each separately if you
> deal with multiple issues at the same time'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 45 ++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
Seems fine.
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 07/30] docs: reporting-issues: explain need for fresh vanilla kernel
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-28 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <616e01c3b2212e3dc7c7cc40f551618092f40c62.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Rewrite the section that explains why a fresh kernel is needed and why
> bug reporters might have to compile one themselves for testing and
> debugging purposes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 141 +++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> index 7dfb3ca4b3e322..2f387e8766f21d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> @@ -49,11 +49,25 @@ Step-by-step guide on reporting Linux kernel issues
> Note: Only the steps starting with '*you must*' are strictly required -- but
> following the others is usually in your own interest.
>
> - * Are you facing an issue with a Linux kernel a hardware or software vendor
> - provided? Then in almost all cases you are better off to stop reading this
> - document and reporting the issue to your vendor instead, unless you are
> - willing to install the latest Linux version yourself. Be aware the latter
> - will often be needed anyway to hunt down and fix issues.
> +.. _intro_repisbs:
> +
> +* Be aware:
> +
> + * You should report issues using a Linux kernel that is both really fresh and
> + vanilla. That often means that you will have to remove software that
> + requires externally developed kernel modules and install the newest upstream
> + Linux development kernel yourself.
> +
> + * There is a decent chance you will have to report the problem by email, in
> + which case your email address will become part of public archives.
> +
> + * You might need to patch and build your own kernel to help developers debug
> + and fix the bug.
> +
> + If these three aspects sound too demanding, consider reporting the issue to
> + your Linux distributor or hardware manufacturer instead.
So nothing to object to here, but this does make me wonder who the
audience is for this document? It seems that you are aiming at people
who do not run upstream kernels, but who want to work with upstream to
get bugs fixed...? That seems worth saying explicitly if so. How big
of a group is this?
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 06/30] docs: reporting-issues: replace TLDR guide with more of an into
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-28 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <bffecd192c73909b8ceb58a123842c943e51200f.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Remove the TLDR guide and just describe the essence: a email is all that
> is needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 90 +++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
This one seems OK - always nice to make it shorter! :)
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 01/30] docs: reporting-issues: mention text is best viewed rendered
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2025-10-27 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis, Jonathan Corbet
Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <4f7e2de2a2336c52e55cc49dcda627a4e86b8793.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
On 10/26/25 5:41 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Add a comment before the step-by-step guide explaining that the document
> is best viewed in the rendered form, as there the internal links will
> work that later patches will add.
>
> While at it change the double quotes in the license hint at the end of
> the document into single quotes, which is the preferred style.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> index a68e6d90927471..3bc47afaf85ea0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> @@ -48,6 +48,16 @@ Once the report is out, answer any questions that come up and help where you
> can. That includes keeping the ball rolling by occasionally retesting with newer
> releases and sending a status update afterwards.
>
> +..
> + Note: If you see this note, you are reading the text's source file. You
> + might want to switch to a rendered version: It makes it a lot easier to
> + read and navigate this document -- especially when you want to look something
> + up in the reference section, then jump back to where you left off.
> +..
> + Find the latest rendered version of this text here:
> + https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html
> +
> +
> Step-by-step guide how to report issues to the kernel maintainers
> =================================================================
>
> @@ -1748,13 +1758,13 @@ art will lay some groundwork to improve the situation over time.
> you spot a typo or small mistake, feel free to let him know directly and
> he'll fix it. You are free to do the same in a mostly informal way if you
> want to contribute changes to the text, but for copyright reasons please CC
> - linux-doc@vger.kernel.org and "sign-off" your contribution as
> - Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst outlines in the section "Sign
> - your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin".
> + linux-doc@vger.kernel.org and 'sign-off' your contribution as
> + Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst outlines in the section 'Sign
> + your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin'.
Can you have a single quote (Developer's) inside single quotes?
Anyway, nack on the quote marks changes.
> ..
> This text is available under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0, as stated at the top
> of the file. If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only,
> - please use "The Linux kernel developers" for author attribution and link
> + please use 'The Linux kernel developers' for author attribution and link
> this as source:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> ..
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 21/21] Docs: add Functions parameters order section
From: Randy Dunlap @ 2025-10-27 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Nikula, Yury Norov (NVIDIA), Linus Walleij, Lee Jones,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, workflows,
linux-doc
In-Reply-To: <723c936f92352352c3b1a84b858d684f5b7a0834@intel.com>
On 10/27/25 2:02 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, "Yury Norov (NVIDIA)" <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Standardize parameters ordering in some typical cases to minimize
>> confusion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> index d1a8e5465ed9..dde24148305c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> @@ -523,6 +523,54 @@ below, compared to the **declaration** example above)::
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> +6.2) Function parameters order
>> +------------------------------
>> +
>> +The order of parameters is important both for code generation and readability.
>> +Passing parameters in an unusual order is a common source of bugs. Listing
>> +them in standard widely adopted order helps to avoid confusion.
>> +
>> +Many ABIs put first function parameter and return value in R0. If your
>> +function returns one of its parameters, passing it at the very beginning
>> +would lead to a better code generation. For example::
>> +
>> + void *memset64(uint64_t *s, uint64_t v, size_t count);
>> + void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
>> +
>> +If your function doesn't propagate a parameter, but has a meaning of copying
>> +and/or processing data, the best practice is following the traditional order:
>> +destination, source, options, flags.
>> +
>> +for_each()-like iterators should take an enumerator the first. For example::
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(bit, mask, nbits);
>> + do_something(bit);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member);
>> + do_something(pos);
>> +
>> +If function operates on a range or ranges of data, corresponding parameters
>> +may be described as ``start - end`` or ``start - size`` pairs. In both cases,
>> +the parameters should follow each other. For example::
>> +
>> + int
>> + check_range(unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
>> + unsigned long kstart, unsigned long kend);
>> +
>> + static inline void flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
>> +
>> + static inline void flush_icache_user_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> + struct page *page,
>> + unsigned long addr, int len);
>> +
>> +Both ``start`` and ``end`` of the interval are inclusive.
>> +
>> +Describing intervals in order ``end - start`` is unfavorable. One notable
>> +example is the ``GENMASK(high, low)`` macro. While such a notation is popular
>> +in hardware context, particularly to describe registers structure, in context
>> +of software development it looks counter intuitive and confusing. Please switch
>> +to an equivalent ``BITS(low, high)`` version.
>> +
>
> GENMASK when used for defining hardware registers is completely fine,
> and *much* easier to deal with when you cross check against the specs
> that almost invariably define high:low.
>
> Which other parts of coding style take on specific interfaces and tell
> you to switch? Weird. I for one don't want to encourage an influx of
> trivial patches doing GENMASK to BITS conversions, and then keep
> rejecting them. It's just a huge collective waste of time.
>
> Anyway, that's a lot of text on "function parameter order" to justify
> BITS(), but completely skips more important principles such as "context
> parameter first", or "destination first".
and usually flags or gfp_t last (if they are used).
There are several exceptions to these, but consistency helps and
lack of it has caused some argument problems in the past.
--
~Randy
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 21/21] Docs: add Functions parameters order section
From: Andi Shyti @ 2025-10-27 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Nikula
Cc: Yury Norov (NVIDIA), Linus Walleij, Lee Jones, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, workflows, linux-doc
In-Reply-To: <723c936f92352352c3b1a84b858d684f5b7a0834@intel.com>
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, "Yury Norov (NVIDIA)" <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Standardize parameters ordering in some typical cases to minimize
> > confusion.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > index d1a8e5465ed9..dde24148305c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > @@ -523,6 +523,54 @@ below, compared to the **declaration** example above)::
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > +6.2) Function parameters order
> > +------------------------------
> > +
> > +The order of parameters is important both for code generation and readability.
> > +Passing parameters in an unusual order is a common source of bugs. Listing
> > +them in standard widely adopted order helps to avoid confusion.
> > +
> > +Many ABIs put first function parameter and return value in R0. If your
> > +function returns one of its parameters, passing it at the very beginning
> > +would lead to a better code generation. For example::
> > +
> > + void *memset64(uint64_t *s, uint64_t v, size_t count);
> > + void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
> > +
> > +If your function doesn't propagate a parameter, but has a meaning of copying
> > +and/or processing data, the best practice is following the traditional order:
> > +destination, source, options, flags.
> > +
> > +for_each()-like iterators should take an enumerator the first. For example::
> > +
> > + for_each_set_bit(bit, mask, nbits);
> > + do_something(bit);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member);
> > + do_something(pos);
> > +
> > +If function operates on a range or ranges of data, corresponding parameters
> > +may be described as ``start - end`` or ``start - size`` pairs. In both cases,
> > +the parameters should follow each other. For example::
> > +
> > + int
> > + check_range(unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
> > + unsigned long kstart, unsigned long kend);
> > +
> > + static inline void flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
> > +
> > + static inline void flush_icache_user_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + struct page *page,
> > + unsigned long addr, int len);
> > +
> > +Both ``start`` and ``end`` of the interval are inclusive.
> > +
> > +Describing intervals in order ``end - start`` is unfavorable. One notable
> > +example is the ``GENMASK(high, low)`` macro. While such a notation is popular
> > +in hardware context, particularly to describe registers structure, in context
> > +of software development it looks counter intuitive and confusing. Please switch
> > +to an equivalent ``BITS(low, high)`` version.
> > +
>
> GENMASK when used for defining hardware registers is completely fine,
> and *much* easier to deal with when you cross check against the specs
> that almost invariably define high:low.
I fully agree with Jani here! When coming into describing
registers my brain is hardwired to read values from left to
right, high-low.
Linus suggested also BITS(start_bit, n_bits) which, in my
opinion, complements what we already have.
We leave GENMASK to register mask descriptions and BITS to the
rest.
Andi
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 05/30] docs: reporting-issues: outline why reporting is complicated
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-27 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <a6704ef5b3a8dcbaf645ddb5407e8f13553502b0.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Replace the closing words with a section that describes why reporting
> Linux kernel bugs is more complicated than in other FLOSS projects.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 67 ++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
So the text is OK but ... this is now the second section that is
essentially a long apology for the kernel process being so difficult.
It seems redundant with the other text, and I'm not convinced we need
it.
Again, length is an impediment to getting people to actually read this
stuff; we should be trying to be as concise as we can. Do we really
need this?
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 04/30] docs: reporting-issues: add proper appendix
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-27 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <c3d92d4e74557bfff3627d8ceb6a9911612af52a.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Turn the "Why some bugs remain unfixed and some report are ignored"
> section into a proper appendix while improving it slightly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 102 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
Some comments below, but I have to ask: do we really need this section
at all? Getting people to read long documents is hard, and this adds a
fair amount of length to, essentially, say that the kernel is an
open-source program like any other and its developers are not required
to address your problems...?
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> index 9676ba85e1b73c..745e698cb6be8b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> @@ -1693,60 +1693,66 @@ for the subsystem where the issue seems to have its roots; CC the mailing list
> for the subsystem as well as the stable mailing list (stable@vger.kernel.org).
>
>
> -Why some issues won't get any reaction or remain unfixed after being reported
> -=============================================================================
> +Appendix: additional background information
> +===========================================
>
> -When reporting a problem to the Linux developers, be aware only 'issues of high
> -priority' (regressions, security issues, severe problems) are definitely going
> -to get resolved. The maintainers or if all else fails Linus Torvalds himself
> -will make sure of that. They and the other kernel developers will fix a lot of
> -other issues as well. But be aware that sometimes they can't or won't help; and
> -sometimes there isn't even anyone to send a report to.
> +.. _unfixedbugs_repiapdx:
This label is seemingly unused?
> -This is best explained with kernel developers that contribute to the Linux
> -kernel in their spare time. Quite a few of the drivers in the kernel were
> -written by such programmers, often because they simply wanted to make their
> -hardware usable on their favorite operating system.
> +Why some bugs remain unfixed and some report are ignored
report*s*
> +--------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +When reporting a problem to the Linux developers, be aware that they are only
> +obliged to fix regressions, security issues, and severe problems. Developers,
> +maintainers, or, if all else fails, Linus Torvalds himself will make sure of
> +that. They will fix a lot of other issues as well, but sometimes they can't or
> +won't help -- and sometimes there isn't even anyone to send a report to.
> +
> +This situation is best explained using kernel developers that contribute to the
"using" is weird; "highlighting" or some such?
> +Linux kernel in their spare time. Quite a few of the drivers in the kernel were
> +written by such programmers; often they simply wanted to make the
> +hardware they owned usable on their favorite operating system.
This really kind of reinforces the old "developed in their parents'
basement" stuff we used to hear; again, do we really need this?
> These programmers most of the time will happily fix problems other people
> -report. But nobody can force them to do, as they are contributing voluntarily.
> -
> -Then there are situations where such developers really want to fix an issue,
> -but can't: sometimes they lack hardware programming documentation to do so.
> -This often happens when the publicly available docs are superficial or the
> -driver was written with the help of reverse engineering.
> -
> -Sooner or later spare time developers will also stop caring for the driver.
> -Maybe their test hardware broke, got replaced by something more fancy, or is so
> -old that it's something you don't find much outside of computer museums
> -anymore. Sometimes developer stops caring for their code and Linux at all, as
> -something different in their life became way more important. In some cases
> -nobody is willing to take over the job as maintainer – and nobody can be forced
> -to, as contributing to the Linux kernel is done on a voluntary basis. Abandoned
> -drivers nevertheless remain in the kernel: they are still useful for people and
> -removing would be a regression.
> +report. But nobody can force them to do so, as they are contributing
> +voluntarily.
> +
> +There are also situations where such developers would like to fix issues,
> +but can't: They might lack programming documentation to do so or hardware to
> +test. The former can happen when the publicly available docs are superficial or
> +when a driver was written with the help of reverse engineering.
> +
> +Sooner or later, spare-time developers usually stop caring for the driver.
> +Maybe their test hardware broke, was replaced by something more fancy, or
> +became so old that it is something you don't find much outside of computer
> +museums anymore. Other times developers also stop caring when
> +something different in life becomes more important to them. Then sometimes
> +nobody is willing to take over the job as maintainer -- and nobody else can be
> +forced to, as contributing is voluntary. The code nevertheless often stays
> +around, as it is useful for people; removing it would also cause a regression,
> +which is not allowed in Linux.
>
> The situation is not that different with developers that are paid for their
> -work on the Linux kernel. Those contribute most changes these days. But their
> -employers sooner or later also stop caring for their code or make its
> -programmer focus on other things. Hardware vendors for example earn their money
> -mainly by selling new hardware; quite a few of them hence are not investing
> -much time and energy in maintaining a Linux kernel driver for something they
> -stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux distributors often care for a
> -longer time period, but in new versions often leave support for old and rare
> -hardware aside to limit the scope. Often spare time contributors take over once
> -a company orphans some code, but as mentioned above: sooner or later they will
> -leave the code behind, too.
> -
> -Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as maintainers
> -quite often are forced to set those, as time to work on Linux is limited.
> -That's true for spare time or the time employers grant their developers to
> -spend on maintenance work on the upstream kernel. Sometimes maintainers also
> -get overwhelmed with reports, even if a driver is working nearly perfectly. To
> -not get completely stuck, the programmer thus might have no other choice than
> -to prioritize issue reports and reject some of them.
> -
> -But don't worry too much about all of this, a lot of drivers have active
> +work on the upstream Linux kernel. Those contribute the most changes these days.
> +But their employers set the priorities. And those sooner or later stop caring
> +for some code or make their
> +employees focus on other things. Hardware vendors, for example, earn their money
> +mainly by selling new hardware -- they thus often are not much interested in
> +investing much time and energy in maintaining a Linux kernel driver for a chip
> +they stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux distributors often care for a
> +longer time period, but in new versions might set support for old and rare
> +hardware aside to limit the scope, too. Often spare-time contributors take over
> +once employed developers orphan some code, but as mentioned earlier: Sooner or
> +later they will usually leave the code behind, too.
> +
> +Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as developers
> +quite often are forced to set those: The spare-time of volunteers or the time
> +employers allot for upstream Linux kernel work is often limited. Sometimes
> +developers are also flooded with good and bad reports, even if a driver is
> +working well. To
> +not get completely stuck, the programmers might have no other choice than
> +to prioritize bug reports and ignore some.
> +
> +But do not worry too much about all of this, a lot of drivers have active
> maintainers who are quite interested in fixing as many issues as possible.
Otherwise OK, I guess, but my overall question stands: do we really need
this text?
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 03/30] docs: reporting-issues: add conclusion to the step-by-step guide
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-27 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <9a8d7b58f482cf0669bc5028dd0e01301f7f526e.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Idea and text comes from
> Documentation/admin-guide/verify-bugs-and-bisect-regressions.rst
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> index 90b50c27c0d2b6..9676ba85e1b73c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> @@ -241,6 +241,20 @@ kernels regularly rebased on those. If that is the case, follow these steps:
> The reference section below explains each of these steps in more detail.
>
>
> +Conclusion of the step-by-step guide
> +------------------------------------
> +
> +Did you run into trouble following the step-by-step guide not cleared up by the
> +reference section below? Did you spot errors? Or do you have ideas on how to
> +improve the guide?
> +
> +If any of that applies, please take a moment and let the primary author of this
> +text, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>, know by email while ideally CCing
> +the public Linux docs mailing list <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>. Such feedback is
> +vital to improve this text further, which is in everybody's interest, as it will
> +enable more people to master the task described here.
> +
Consider also soliciting patches to improve it - one can always hope we
can bring in some help...
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 02/30] docs: reporting-issues: tweak the reference section intro
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-27 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <d94aa32d4a1ed5ef9d0f768d05e64987f4a1ae69.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Small improvements to the intro of the reference section.
That's a bit uninformative ... what is the purpose of these
improvements? That information would be especially helpful in a patch
that simply replaces that section altogether.
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 67 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> index 3bc47afaf85ea0..90b50c27c0d2b6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
> @@ -244,42 +244,37 @@ The reference section below explains each of these steps in more detail.
[...]
> +The step-by-step guide above outlines all the major steps in brief fashion,
> +which usually covers everything required. But even experienced users will
> +sometimes wonder how to actually realize some of those steps or why they are
> +needed; there are also corner cases the guide ignores for readability. That is
> +what the entries in this reference section are for, which provide additional
> +information for each of the steps in the detailed guide.
> +
> +A few words of general advice:
> +
> +* The Linux kernel developers are well aware that reporting bugs to them is
> + more complicated and demanding than in other FLOSS projects. Quite a few
> + would love to make it simpler. But that would require convincing a lot of
> + developers to change their habits; it, furthermore, would require improvements
> + on several technical fronts and people that constantly take care of various
> + things. Nobody has stepped up to do or fund that work.
This paragraph ... essentially says "we're making it hard on you because
kernel developers can't be bothered to work on GitHub". But a lot of
the complexity, as reflected in this guide, has to do with properly
gathering the information that is needed to have a hope at tracking a
problem down. I'm not sure this paragraph is needed at all but, if
you're going to keep it, have it at least reflect that the complexity of
problem reporting has a lot to do with the complexity of the problem
domain rather than developers who are stuck in their habits.
Otherwise seems OK.
Thanks,
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 01/30] docs: reporting-issues: mention text is best viewed rendered
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-27 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <4f7e2de2a2336c52e55cc49dcda627a4e86b8793.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> Add a comment before the step-by-step guide explaining that the document
> is best viewed in the rendered form, as there the internal links will
> work that later patches will add.
>
> While at it change the double quotes in the license hint at the end of
> the document into single quotes, which is the preferred style.
That is the classic marker of an independent change, of course. But
more significantly ... "preferred" by who? Double quotes are the normal
English style that folks like me learned many years ago...
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Otherwise seems OK.
jon
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v1 00/30] docs: reporting-issues: rework
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2025-10-27 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thorsten Leemhuis; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> I worked on-and-off on this for maybe two years and the problem is:
> what started as fine tuning in various places piled up. That together
> with the newly added links & anchors and some text movements makes the
> patchset huge. When you ignore those two aspects and look at individual
> patches using a word diff algorithm it looks a lot less scary, but it
> remains big – and thus sadly puts some load on reviewers and
> translators. Sorry. I think it's worth it and tried to split things up
> to facilitate handling.
It is indeed a lot, it's going to be hard to get people (including me)
to look at it all. I think you should really consider breaking this
into smaller sets and getting them through one at a time...
I'll look at a few of these, but certainly won't get through the whole
set today.
Thanks,
jon
P.S. Grumbling aside, it's good to have you back...
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 21/21] Docs: add Functions parameters order section
From: Jeff Johnson @ 2025-10-27 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jani Nikula, Yury Norov (NVIDIA), Linus Walleij, Lee Jones,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, workflows,
linux-doc
In-Reply-To: <723c936f92352352c3b1a84b858d684f5b7a0834@intel.com>
On 10/27/2025 2:02 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, "Yury Norov (NVIDIA)" <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Standardize parameters ordering in some typical cases to minimize
>> confusion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> index d1a8e5465ed9..dde24148305c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> @@ -523,6 +523,54 @@ below, compared to the **declaration** example above)::
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> +6.2) Function parameters order
>> +------------------------------
>> +
>> +The order of parameters is important both for code generation and readability.
>> +Passing parameters in an unusual order is a common source of bugs. Listing
>> +them in standard widely adopted order helps to avoid confusion.
>> +
>> +Many ABIs put first function parameter and return value in R0. If your
>> +function returns one of its parameters, passing it at the very beginning
>> +would lead to a better code generation. For example::
>> +
>> + void *memset64(uint64_t *s, uint64_t v, size_t count);
>> + void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
>> +
>> +If your function doesn't propagate a parameter, but has a meaning of copying
>> +and/or processing data, the best practice is following the traditional order:
>> +destination, source, options, flags.
>> +
>> +for_each()-like iterators should take an enumerator the first. For example::
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(bit, mask, nbits);
>> + do_something(bit);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member);
>> + do_something(pos);
>> +
>> +If function operates on a range or ranges of data, corresponding parameters
>> +may be described as ``start - end`` or ``start - size`` pairs. In both cases,
>> +the parameters should follow each other. For example::
>> +
>> + int
>> + check_range(unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
>> + unsigned long kstart, unsigned long kend);
>> +
>> + static inline void flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
>> +
>> + static inline void flush_icache_user_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> + struct page *page,
>> + unsigned long addr, int len);
>> +
>> +Both ``start`` and ``end`` of the interval are inclusive.
>> +
>> +Describing intervals in order ``end - start`` is unfavorable. One notable
>> +example is the ``GENMASK(high, low)`` macro. While such a notation is popular
>> +in hardware context, particularly to describe registers structure, in context
>> +of software development it looks counter intuitive and confusing. Please switch
>> +to an equivalent ``BITS(low, high)`` version.
>> +
>
> GENMASK when used for defining hardware registers is completely fine,
> and *much* easier to deal with when you cross check against the specs
> that almost invariably define high:low.
Not only that, there is no common definition of BITS
Defined in 7 files as a macro:
arch/arc/include/asm/disasm.h, line 32 (as a macro)
drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu-regs.h, line 15 (as a macro)
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/coex.h, line 14 (as a macro)
fs/select.c, line 415 (as a macro)
lib/zlib_inflate/inflate.c, line 232 (as a macro)
sound/core/oss/rate.c, line 28 (as a macro)
tools/perf/dlfilters/dlfilter-show-cycles.c, line 22 (as a macro)
Most of these do NOT have a (low, high) signature.
And GENMASK will throw a compile error if you swap the high and low:
#define GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(const_true((l) > (h)))
IMO the real confusion with GENMASK(), which would be the same with the
proposed BITS(), is that without knowledge of the implementation, when looking
at an instance of usage you can't tell if the parameters are two bit numbers
or a start bit and number of bits.
/jeff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 21/21] Docs: add Functions parameters order section
From: Jani Nikula @ 2025-10-27 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yury Norov (NVIDIA), Linus Walleij, Lee Jones, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, Jonathan Corbet, workflows, linux-doc
Cc: Yury Norov (NVIDIA)
In-Reply-To: <20251025163305.306787-14-yury.norov@gmail.com>
On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, "Yury Norov (NVIDIA)" <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Standardize parameters ordering in some typical cases to minimize
> confusion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> ---
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index d1a8e5465ed9..dde24148305c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -523,6 +523,54 @@ below, compared to the **declaration** example above)::
> ...
> }
>
> +6.2) Function parameters order
> +------------------------------
> +
> +The order of parameters is important both for code generation and readability.
> +Passing parameters in an unusual order is a common source of bugs. Listing
> +them in standard widely adopted order helps to avoid confusion.
> +
> +Many ABIs put first function parameter and return value in R0. If your
> +function returns one of its parameters, passing it at the very beginning
> +would lead to a better code generation. For example::
> +
> + void *memset64(uint64_t *s, uint64_t v, size_t count);
> + void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
> +
> +If your function doesn't propagate a parameter, but has a meaning of copying
> +and/or processing data, the best practice is following the traditional order:
> +destination, source, options, flags.
> +
> +for_each()-like iterators should take an enumerator the first. For example::
> +
> + for_each_set_bit(bit, mask, nbits);
> + do_something(bit);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member);
> + do_something(pos);
> +
> +If function operates on a range or ranges of data, corresponding parameters
> +may be described as ``start - end`` or ``start - size`` pairs. In both cases,
> +the parameters should follow each other. For example::
> +
> + int
> + check_range(unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
> + unsigned long kstart, unsigned long kend);
> +
> + static inline void flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
> +
> + static inline void flush_icache_user_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + struct page *page,
> + unsigned long addr, int len);
> +
> +Both ``start`` and ``end`` of the interval are inclusive.
> +
> +Describing intervals in order ``end - start`` is unfavorable. One notable
> +example is the ``GENMASK(high, low)`` macro. While such a notation is popular
> +in hardware context, particularly to describe registers structure, in context
> +of software development it looks counter intuitive and confusing. Please switch
> +to an equivalent ``BITS(low, high)`` version.
> +
GENMASK when used for defining hardware registers is completely fine,
and *much* easier to deal with when you cross check against the specs
that almost invariably define high:low.
Which other parts of coding style take on specific interfaces and tell
you to switch? Weird. I for one don't want to encourage an influx of
trivial patches doing GENMASK to BITS conversions, and then keep
rejecting them. It's just a huge collective waste of time.
Anyway, that's a lot of text on "function parameter order" to justify
BITS(), but completely skips more important principles such as "context
parameter first", or "destination first".
BR,
Jani.
> 7) Centralized exiting of functions
> -----------------------------------
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] add check for pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL
From: ally heev @ 2025-10-27 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray, Lukas Bulwahn, Joe Perches, Jonathan Corbet,
Andy Whitcroft, workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel, David Hunter,
Shuah Khan, Viresh Kumar, Nishanth Menon, Stephen Boyd, linux-pm,
dan.j.williams
In-Reply-To: <aP8CxkXYAitKB3vx@stanley.mountain>
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 10:57 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
> > General question about the process for my understanding:
> > Is checkpatch run on full tree by CI or someone and results reported
> > regularly ?
>
> Newbies run it regularly. Otherwise it gets run on subsystem CIs and
> the zero-day bot runs it on new patches but it will report the old
> warnings as well under the "Old warnings" section.
>
> > My understanding was that we would run it only on patches
> > before submitting them Or we just run it on full tree before adding
> > new checks to understand if they are catching real issues
>
> Eventually someone will look at all the warnings. And probably it's
> going to be a newbie and so we need to be careful with warning where
> newbies might introduce bugs with their changes.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
Makes sense. Thanks!!
---
aheev
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] add check for pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2025-10-27 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ally heev
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray, Lukas Bulwahn, Joe Perches, Jonathan Corbet,
Andy Whitcroft, workflows, linux-doc, linux-kernel, David Hunter,
Shuah Khan, Viresh Kumar, Nishanth Menon, Stephen Boyd, linux-pm,
dan.j.williams
In-Reply-To: <81e6af8eea5b0399d1685797d0ea6a6ebc273270.camel@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 11:53:56AM +0530, ally heev wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 21:08 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:59:16PM +0530, Ally Heev wrote:
> > > pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL
> > > pose potential cleanup issues [1] when a function uses
> > > interdependent variables with cleanup attributes
> > >
> > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/cleanup.html [1]
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68f7b830ec21a_10e910070@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch/
> > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev <allyheev@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > I don't think this patch is a good idea... There are two issues to
> > consider 1) The absolute number over warnings. 500+ is too high.
> > 2) The ratio of bugs to false positives and we don't have any data on
> > that but I bet it's low. It needs to be at least 5%. For anything
> > lower than that, you're better off just reviewing code at random
> > instead of looking through warnings.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
>
> makes sense
>
> General question about the process for my understanding:
> Is checkpatch run on full tree by CI or someone and results reported
> regularly ?
Newbies run it regularly. Otherwise it gets run on subsystem CIs and
the zero-day bot runs it on new patches but it will report the old
warnings as well under the "Old warnings" section.
> My understanding was that we would run it only on patches
> before submitting them Or we just run it on full tree before adding
> new checks to understand if they are catching real issues
Eventually someone will look at all the warnings. And probably it's
going to be a newbie and so we need to be careful with warning where
newbies might introduce bugs with their changes.
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH v1 30/30] docs: reporting-issues: fix a few line breaks
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2025-10-26 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Rewrap a few paragraphs that have odd line breaks to keep the diff
clearer in preceding changes. Apart from that no text changes.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
.../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 230 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 111 insertions(+), 119 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
index d81d558c245953..3b1519fe80511f 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
@@ -615,29 +615,29 @@ Check 'taint' flag
*Check if the kernel was already 'tainted' when the issue first occurred* [:ref:`... <taintone_repisbs>`]
The kernel marks itself with a 'taint' flag when something happens that might
-lead to follow-up errors looking totally unrelated. Your issue might
-be such an error, in which case there is nothing to report. That is why it is
-in your interest to check the taint status early in the reporting process. This
-is the main reason why this step is here in the guide, as you most likely will
-have to install a different kernel for reporting later -- and then need to
-recheck the flag, as that is when it matters.
+lead to follow-up errors looking totally unrelated. Your issue might be such an
+error, in which case there is nothing to report. That is why it is in your
+interest to check the taint status early in the reporting process. This is the
+main reason why this step is here in the guide, as you most likely will have to
+install a different kernel for reporting later -- and then need to recheck the
+flag, as that is when it matters.
To check the tainted flag, execute ``cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted``: If it
returns '0' everything is fine; if it contains a higher number, it is tainted.
-In some situations it is impossible to check that file. That is
-why the kernel also mentions the taint status when it reports small (a
-'warning' or a 'bug') or big (an 'Oops' or a 'panic') problems. In such cases,
-search for a line starting with 'CPU:' near the top of the error messages
-printed on the screen or in the log. If the kernel at that point considered
-itself to be fine, it will end with 'Not tainted'; if not, you will see
-'Tainted:' followed by a few spaces and some letters.
+In some situations it is impossible to check that file. That is why the kernel
+also mentions the taint status when it reports small (a 'warning' or a 'bug') or
+big (an 'Oops' or a 'panic') problems. In such cases, search for a line starting
+with 'CPU:' near the top of the error messages printed on the screen or in the
+log. If the kernel at that point considered itself to be fine, it will end with
+'Not tainted'; if not, you will see 'Tainted:' followed by a few spaces and some
+letters.
If your kernel is tainted, check Documentation/admin-guide/tainted-kernels.rst
-to find out why. Note: It is quite possible that the problem you ran into
-caused the kernel to taint itself, in which case you are free to ignore the
-flag. But if the kernel was tainted beforehand, you might have to eliminate the
-cause or rule out that it is an influence.
+to find out why. Note: It is quite possible that the problem you ran into caused
+the kernel to taint itself, in which case you are free to ignore the flag. But
+if the kernel was tainted beforehand, you might have to eliminate the cause or
+rule out that it is an influence.
These are the most frequent reasons why the kernel set the flag:
@@ -649,18 +649,17 @@ These are the most frequent reasons why the kernel set the flag:
Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
That is the first Oops since boot-up, as the '#1' between the brackets shows.
- Every later Oops and any other problem that happens afterwards might be
- a follow-up issue
- that would never have happened otherwise, even if both look totally unrelated.
- Rule this out by eliminating the cause for the first Oops and reproducing
- the issue afterwards. Sometimes simply restarting will be enough; other times
- a change to the configuration followed by a reboot can eliminate the Oops.
+ Every later Oops and any other problem that happens afterwards might be a
+ follow-up issue that would never have happened otherwise, even if both look
+ totally unrelated. Rule this out by eliminating the cause for the first Oops
+ and reproducing the issue afterwards. Sometimes simply restarting will be
+ enough; other times a change to the configuration followed by a reboot can
+ eliminate the Oops.
Note: Do not invest too much time into this while you are still on an
- outdated or vendor kernel: The cause for the Oops might already be fixed in
- a newer Linux kernel
- version you most likely will have to install for reporting while following
- this guide.
+ outdated or vendor kernel: The cause for the Oops might already be fixed in a
+ newer Linux kernel version you most likely will have to install for reporting
+ while following this guide.
2. Your system uses software that installs externally developed kernel modules,
for example, kernel modules from Nvidia, OpenZFS, VirtualBox, or VMware. The
@@ -838,10 +837,9 @@ development process:
* You deal with a regression, if some application or practical use case running
fine with one Linux kernel version works worse or not at all with a newer
version compiled using a similar configuration; the 'no regression' rule
- forbids that. The document
- Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst explains these and
- additional aspects in more detail, but everything important is covered in
- this document.
+ forbids that. The document Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
+ explains these and additional aspects in more detail, but everything important
+ is covered in this document.
* What qualifies as a security issue is left to your judgment. Consider reading
Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst before proceeding, which
@@ -892,12 +890,10 @@ How to read the MAINTAINERS file
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To illustrate how to use the :ref:`MAINTAINERS <maintainers>` file, let's assume
-the WiFi in your Laptop misbehaves. In that
-case it is likely an issue in the WiFi driver. Obviously it could also be some
-underlying code from other subsystems, but unless something hints at that,
-stick to the driver; if it is really something else, the driver's developers
-will involve the
-right people.
+the WiFi in your Laptop misbehaves. In that case it is likely an issue in the
+WiFi driver. Obviously it could also be some underlying code from other
+subsystems, but unless something hints at that, stick to the driver; if it is
+really something else, the driver's developers will involve the right people.
Sadly, there is no way to check which code is driving a particular hardware
component that is both universal and easy.
@@ -953,9 +949,8 @@ only has someone who provides 'Odd Fixes' when feeling motivated. And with
That only leaves these options: Arrange yourself to live with the issue, fix it
yourself, or find a programmer somewhere willing to fix it.
-After checking the status, look for a line starting with 'bugs:' ('B:'): It
-will tell you where to find a subsystem-specific bug tracker to file your
-issue. The
+After checking the status, look for a line starting with 'bugs:' ('B:'): It will
+tell you where to find a subsystem-specific bug tracker to file your issue. The
example above does not have such a line. That is the case for most sections, as
Linux kernel development is completely driven by email: Very few subsystems use
a bug tracker, and only some of those rely on bugzilla.kernel.org.
@@ -1158,9 +1153,9 @@ addresses that allow pinpointing the exact path to the line in your kernel's
source code that triggered the issue. Many bugs can be resolved without
decoding these addresses, but for some it is helpful or required.
-That is why it is fine to report problems without bothering about this, but
-when asked for this, try to decode the stack trace. Note: This requires a
-kernel build with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO and CONFIG_KALLSYMS enabled.
+That is why it is fine to report problems without bothering about this, but when
+asked for this, try to decode the stack trace. Note: This requires a kernel
+build with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO and CONFIG_KALLSYMS enabled.
Usually you want to decode using a script shipped in the Linux sources. If you
are running a kernel you compiled yourself, call it like this::
@@ -1187,10 +1182,10 @@ In this case the executed code was built from the file
'~/linux-5.10.5/test-module/test-module.c' and the error occurred during the
instructions found in line '16'.
-The script will similarly decode the addresses mentioned in the section
-starting with 'Call trace', which shows the path to the function where the
-problem occurred. The script, furthermore, will show the assembler output for
-the code section the kernel was executing at that time.
+The script will similarly decode the addresses mentioned in the section starting
+with 'Call trace', which shows the path to the function where the problem
+occurred. The script, furthermore, will show the assembler output for the code
+section the kernel was executing at that time.
[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <attachments_repisbs>`]
@@ -1202,10 +1197,10 @@ Prepare and optimize the report
*Prepare and optimize the report.* [:ref:`... <compile_repisbs>`]
-Most developers just take a few seconds to skim a report before deciding
-between taking a closer look or moving on, as they receive a ton of messages.
-That is why the title/subject, the first sentence, and the three or four
-following it are crucial.
+Most developers just take a few seconds to skim a report before deciding between
+taking a closer look or moving on, as they receive a ton of messages. That is
+why the title/subject, the first sentence, and the three or four following it
+are crucial.
People will also stop reading if the report's text is long or hard to follow;
the same is true if crucial information is not at hand. So be sure to describe
@@ -1373,12 +1368,11 @@ But frequently it is a little less straightforward. That is why the job often
is only starting once you send a report. What you'll have to do depends on the
situation. Here are a few tips:
-**Check who you deal with**: Most of the time a
-developer for the particular area of code will respond. But as
-issues are usually reported in public, it could be anyone --
-including people that want to help but in the end send you off
-track. That is why it might be wise to run a quick search on `lore <https://lore.kernel.org/all/>`_
-to see who you are interacting with.
+**Check who you deal with**: Most of the time a developer for the particular
+area of code will respond. But as issues are usually reported in public, it
+could be anyone -- including people that want to help but in the end send you
+off track. That is why it might be wise to run a quick search on `lore
+<https://lore.kernel.org/all/>`_ to see who you are interacting with.
**Inquiries for data**: Often you will be asked to test something or provide
additional details. Try to supply the requested information soon, as you have
@@ -1412,21 +1406,21 @@ do not rush it: Mixing things up can happen easily and leads to a lot of
confusion. A common mistake, for example, is thinking a proposed fix was applied
when building a test kernel, when in fact it was not.
-**Try to help yourself** before asking for help: During this part of the
-process someone might tell you to do something that requires a skill you might
-not have mastered yet. For example, you might be asked to use some test tools
-you have never heard of yet; or you are asked to apply a patch to the
-Linux kernel sources to test. It usually will be fine replying asking for
-instructions on how to do that. But before going that route, try to find the
-answer on your own by searching the internet; alternatively,
-consider asking elsewhere for advice. For example, ask a friend or post
-your question to a chat room or forum you normally hang out in.
+**Try to help yourself** before asking for help: During this part of the process
+someone might tell you to do something that requires a skill you might not have
+mastered yet. For example, you might be asked to use some test tools you have
+never heard of yet; or you are asked to apply a patch to the Linux kernel
+sources to test. It usually will be fine replying asking for instructions on how
+to do that. But before going that route, try to find the answer on your own by
+searching the internet; alternatively, consider asking elsewhere for advice. For
+example, ask a friend or post your question to a chat room or forum you normally
+hang out in.
**Be patient**: If you are really lucky, you might receive a reply to your
report within a few hours. But most of the time it will take longer, as
-maintainers might be in a different time zone -- one where people currently
-take a few days off or already enjoy their night away from the keyboard. They
-might also simply be busy with other work, on a trip to a conference, or simply
+maintainers might be in a different time zone -- one where people currently take
+a few days off or already enjoy their night away from the keyboard. They might
+also simply be busy with other work, on a trip to a conference, or simply
enjoying a long holiday.
[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <keeprolling_repisbs>`]
@@ -1462,12 +1456,12 @@ What to do when nothing of substance happens
*If things stall for more than two to three weeks, evaluate why. It can
happen due to good or bad reasons, like* [:ref:`... <reminder_repisbs>`]
-Sometimes you will not receive any reaction from the responsible
-developers; or a discussion around the issue evolves but ends fruitlessly.
+Sometimes you will not receive any reaction from the responsible developers; or
+a discussion around the issue evolves but ends fruitlessly.
-In these cases, wait two to three weeks before sending a friendly
-reminder: Maybe the right developers were just away from their keyboards when
-you sent your report or had something more important to take care of.
+In these cases, wait two to three weeks before sending a friendly reminder:
+Maybe the right developers were just away from their keyboards when you sent
+your report or had something more important to take care of.
When writing the reminder, kindly ask if there was anything wrong with the
report or if anything from your side is needed to get the ball rolling. If the
@@ -1477,17 +1471,16 @@ the recipients will have both the gist of the problem and the details at hand
immediately in convenient order.
After sending a reminder, wait three more weeks for replies. If you still don't
-receive a proper reaction, reconsider your approach. Did you maybe try
-to reach out to the wrong people? Was the report possibly offensive or so
-confusing that people decided to stay away from it?
-
-The best way to
-rule out such factors: Show the report to one or two people familiar with FLOSS
-issue reporting and ask for their opinion. Also ask them for their advice on how
-to move forward. That might mean preparing a better report and making those
-people review it before sending it out. Such an approach is totally fine; just
-mention that this is the second and improved report on the issue and include a
-link to the first report.
+receive a proper reaction, reconsider your approach. Did you maybe try to reach
+out to the wrong people? Was the report possibly offensive or so confusing that
+people decided to stay away from it?
+
+The best way to rule out such factors: Show the report to one or two people
+familiar with FLOSS issue reporting and ask for their opinion. Also ask them for
+their advice on how to move forward. That might mean preparing a better report
+and making those people review it before sending it out. Such an approach is
+totally fine; just mention that this is the second and improved report on the
+issue and include a link to the first report.
If the report was proper, you can send a second reminder; in it, ask for advice
on why the report did not receive any replies. An ideal moment for this is
@@ -1507,14 +1500,14 @@ In most cases nobody is obliged to help
Developers ideally should react somehow to every issue report, but sometimes do
not reply or, in the end, do not address problems. This is due to reasons
-[:ref:`Why some bugs remain unfixed and some reports are ignored <unfixedbugs_repiapdx>`]
-explains in more detail, which also explains why some code does not even have
-maintainers.
+[:ref:`Why some bugs remain unfixed and some reports are ignored
+<unfixedbugs_repiapdx>`] explains in more detail, which also explains why some
+code does not even have maintainers.
-Try to help yourself in that case.
-You, for example, could team up with others affected to then create a better
-report or narrow down the root cause of a problem. With a bit of luck, someone
-on the team might even know a bit about programming and provide a fix.
+Try to help yourself in that case. You, for example, could team up with others
+affected to then create a better report or narrow down the root cause of a
+problem. With a bit of luck, someone on the team might even know a bit about
+programming and provide a fix.
[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <yourself_repisbs>`]
@@ -1548,35 +1541,34 @@ test. The former can happen when the publicly available docs are superficial or
when a driver was written with the help of reverse engineering.
Sooner or later, spare-time developers usually stop caring for the driver.
-Maybe their test hardware broke, was replaced by something more fancy, or
-became so old that it is something you don't find much outside of computer
-museums anymore. Other times developers also stop caring when
-something different in life becomes more important to them. Then sometimes
-nobody is willing to take over the job as maintainer -- and nobody else can be
-forced to, as contributing is voluntary. The code nevertheless often stays
-around, as it is useful for people; removing it would also cause a regression,
-which is not allowed in Linux.
-
-The situation is not that different with developers that are paid for their
-work on the upstream Linux kernel. Those contribute the most changes these days.
-But their employers set the priorities. And those sooner or later stop caring
-for some code or make their
-employees focus on other things. Hardware vendors, for example, earn their money
-mainly by selling new hardware -- they thus often are not much interested in
-investing much time and energy in maintaining a Linux kernel driver for a chip
-they stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux distributors often care for a
-longer time period, but in new versions might set support for old and rare
-hardware aside to limit the scope, too. Often spare-time contributors take over
-once employed developers orphan some code, but as mentioned earlier: Sooner or
-later they will usually leave the code behind, too.
-
-Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as developers
-quite often are forced to set those: The spare-time of volunteers or the time
+Maybe their test hardware broke, was replaced by something more fancy, or became
+so old that it is something you don't find much outside of computer museums
+anymore. Other times developers also stop caring when something different in
+life becomes more important to them. Then sometimes nobody is willing to take
+over the job as maintainer -- and nobody else can be forced to, as contributing
+is voluntary. The code nevertheless often stays around, as it is useful for
+people; removing it would also cause a regression, which is not allowed in
+Linux.
+
+The situation is not that different with developers that are paid for their work
+on the upstream Linux kernel. Those contribute the most changes these days. But
+their employers set the priorities. And those sooner or later stop caring for
+some code or make their employees focus on other things. Hardware vendors, for
+example, earn their money mainly by selling new hardware -- they thus often are
+not much interested in investing much time and energy in maintaining a Linux
+kernel driver for a chip they stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux
+distributors often care for a longer time period, but in new versions might set
+support for old and rare hardware aside to limit the scope, too. Often
+spare-time contributors take over once employed developers orphan some code, but
+as mentioned earlier: Sooner or later they will usually leave the code behind,
+too.
+
+Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as developers quite
+often are forced to set those: The spare-time of volunteers or the time
employers allot for upstream Linux kernel work is often limited. Sometimes
developers are also flooded with good and bad reports, even if a driver is
-working well. To
-not get completely stuck, the programmers might have no other choice than
-to prioritize bug reports and ignore some.
+working well. To not get completely stuck, the programmers might have no other
+choice than to prioritize bug reports and ignore some.
But do not worry too much about all of this, a lot of drivers have active
maintainers who are quite interested in fixing as many issues as possible.
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v1 15/30] docs: reporting-issues: improve text on classifying the bug
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2025-10-26 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Fine-tune the instructions about classifying the bug.
This drops support for "really severe problems", this is a rare special
case not woth spending much thought on.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
.../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 62 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
index 623feb55caae97..be0e49046ec913 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
@@ -128,10 +128,13 @@ following the others is usually in your own interest.
[:ref:`details <checkloreone_repiref>`]
+.. _specialtreat_repisbs:
- * See if the issue you are dealing with qualifies as regression, security
- issue, or a really severe problem: those are 'issues of high priority' that
- need special handling in some steps that are about to follow.
+* Evaluate if the issue you are dealing with qualifies as a regression or
+ security issue, as those receive special treatment in some of the following
+ steps.
+
+ [:ref:`details <specialtreat_repiref>`]
* Create a fresh backup and put system repair and restore tools at hand.
@@ -647,37 +650,30 @@ While doing so, keep in mind:
[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <checkloreone_repisbs>`]
-Issue of high priority?
------------------------
+.. _specialtreat_repiref:
+
+Issues receiving special treatment
+----------------------------------
+
+ *Evaluate if the issue you are dealing with qualifies as a regression or
+ security issue, as those* [:ref:`... <specialtreat_repisbs>`]
+
+Check if you face an issue that receives special treatment in the Linux
+development process:
+
+* You deal with a regression, if some application or practical use case running
+ fine with one Linux kernel version works worse or not at all with a newer
+ version compiled using a similar configuration; the 'no regression' rule
+ forbids that. The document
+ Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst explains these and
+ additional aspects in more detail, but everything important is covered in
+ this document.
+
+* What qualifies as a security issue is left to your judgment. Consider reading
+ Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst before proceeding, which
+ provides instructions on handling security issues.
- *See if the issue you are dealing with qualifies as regression, security
- issue, or a really severe problem: those are 'issues of high priority' that
- need special handling in some steps that are about to follow.*
-
-Linus Torvalds and the leading Linux kernel developers want to see some issues
-fixed as soon as possible, hence there are 'issues of high priority' that get
-handled slightly differently in the reporting process. Three type of cases
-qualify: regressions, security issues, and really severe problems.
-
-You deal with a regression if some application or practical use case running
-fine with one Linux kernel works worse or not at all with a newer version
-compiled using a similar configuration. The document
-Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst explains this in more
-detail. It also provides a good deal of other information about regressions you
-might want to be aware of; it for example explains how to add your issue to the
-list of tracked regressions, to ensure it won't fall through the cracks.
-
-What qualifies as security issue is left to your judgment. Consider reading
-Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst before proceeding, as it
-provides additional details how to best handle security issues.
-
-An issue is a 'really severe problem' when something totally unacceptably bad
-happens. That's for example the case when a Linux kernel corrupts the data it's
-handling or damages hardware it's running on. You're also dealing with a severe
-issue when the kernel suddenly stops working with an error message ('kernel
-panic') or without any farewell note at all. Note: do not confuse a 'panic' (a
-fatal error where the kernel stop itself) with a 'Oops' (a recoverable error),
-as the kernel remains running after the latter.
+[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <specialtreat_repisbs>`]
Prepare for emergencies
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH v1 16/30] docs: reporting-issues: add fast-track for regressions
From: Thorsten Leemhuis @ 2025-10-26 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: workflows, linux-doc, regressions, linux-kernel
In-Reply-To: <cover.1761481839.git.linux@leemhuis.info>
Some regressions are reported multiple times within a short time frame,
so it's worth asking on the regressions mailing list: subscribers might
already known about them and might safe the reporter a lot of trouble,
as reporting it again is unlikely to do much of a difference.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
.../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
index be0e49046ec913..f040ca7c0a2f59 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
@@ -136,6 +136,19 @@ following the others is usually in your own interest.
[:ref:`details <specialtreat_repiref>`]
+.. _reginquiry_repisbs:
+
+* Do you face a regression? One still occurring in a kernel version less than
+ two (ideally: one) weeks old? A kernel that is vanilla or close to it? If
+ you answered all three questions with 'yes', feel free to send a brief email
+ to the public 'Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>'
+ asking if the problem is known. If someone confirms this to be the case,
+ there most likely is no need to follow this guide further; but do so in case
+ there is no reply with a pointer to a matching report within two or three
+ weekdays. You are also free to immediately continue if you feel like it.
+
+ [:ref:`details <reginquiry_repiref>`]
+
* Create a fresh backup and put system repair and restore tools at hand.
* Ensure your system does not enhance its kernels by building additional
@@ -676,6 +689,22 @@ development process:
[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <specialtreat_repisbs>`]
+.. _reginquiry_repiref:
+
+Fast track for regressions
+--------------------------
+
+ *Do you face a regression? One still occurring in a kernel version less than
+ two (ideally: one) weeks old? A kernel that is vanilla or close to it? If you
+ answered* [:ref:`... <reginquiry_repisbs>`]
+
+This is an optional fast track that might relieve you from further work on
+reporting in case the issue is already known. Note: It are volunteers that
+answer these emails on a best-effort basis.
+
+[:ref:`back to step-by-step guide <reginquiry_repisbs>`]
+
+
Prepare for emergencies
-----------------------
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox