redonkable
/
alistair23-linux
1
0
Fork 0
Code Releases Activity

docs: update the development process document 

Here's a set of changes updating Documentation/development-process.  I have
update kernel releases and relevant statistics, added information for a
couple of tools, zapped some trailing white space, and generally tried to
make it more closely match the current state of affairs.

[Typo fixes from Joe Perches and Nicolas Kaiser incorporated]

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Acked-by: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
hifive-unleashed-5.1
Jonathan Corbet 2011-03-25 12:17:53 -06:00
parent 9cad796270
commit 5c050fb963
7 changed files with 163 additions and 124 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

18
Documentation/development-process/1.Intro
View File

@ -56,13 +56,13 @@ information on kernel development.
1.2: WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS ABOUT
The Linux kernel, at over 6 million lines of code and well over 1000 active
contributors, is one of the largest and most active free software projects
in existence. Since its humble beginning in 1991, this kernel has evolved
into a best-of-breed operating system component which runs on pocket-sized
digital music players, desktop PCs, the largest supercomputers in
existence, and all types of systems in between. It is a robust, efficient,
and scalable solution for almost any situation.
The Linux kernel, at over 8 million lines of code and well over 1000
contributors to each release, is one of the largest and most active free
software projects in existence. Since its humble beginning in 1991, this
kernel has evolved into a best-of-breed operating system component which
runs on pocket-sized digital music players, desktop PCs, the largest
supercomputers in existence, and all types of systems in between. It is a
robust, efficient, and scalable solution for almost any situation.
With the growth of Linux has come an increase in the number of developers
(and companies) wishing to participate in its development. Hardware
@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ This document was written by Jonathan Corbet, corbet@lwn.net. It has been
improved by comments from Johannes Berg, James Berry, Alex Chiang, Roland
Dreier, Randy Dunlap, Jake Edge, Jiri Kosina, Matt Mackall, Arthur Marsh,
Amanda McPherson, Andrew Morton, Andrew Price, Tsugikazu Shibata, and
Jochen Voß.
Jochen Voß.
This work was supported by the Linux Foundation; thanks especially to
Amanda McPherson, who saw the value of this effort and made it all happen.
@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ include:
- Everything that was said above about code review applies doubly to
closed-source code. Since this code is not available at all, it cannot
have been reviewed by the community and will, beyond doubt, have serious
problems.
problems.
Makers of embedded systems, in particular, may be tempted to disregard much
of what has been said in this section in the belief that they are shipping

169
Documentation/development-process/2.Process
View File

@ -14,16 +14,15 @@ The kernel developers use a loosely time-based release process, with a new
major kernel release happening every two or three months. The recent
release history looks like this:
2.6.26 July 13, 2008
2.6.25 April 16, 2008
2.6.24 January 24, 2008
2.6.23 October 9, 2007
2.6.22 July 8, 2007
2.6.21 April 25, 2007
2.6.20 February 4, 2007
2.6.38 March 14, 2011
2.6.37 January 4, 2011
2.6.36 October 20, 2010
2.6.35 August 1, 2010
2.6.34 May 15, 2010
2.6.33 February 24, 2010
Every 2.6.x release is a major kernel release with new features, internal
API changes, and more. A typical 2.6 release can contain over 10,000
API changes, and more. A typical 2.6 release can contain nearly 10,000
changesets with changes to several hundred thousand lines of code. 2.6 is
thus the leading edge of Linux kernel development; the kernel uses a
rolling development model which is continually integrating major changes.
@ -42,13 +41,13 @@ merge window do not come out of thin air; they have been collected, tested,
and staged ahead of time. How that process works will be described in
detail later on).
The merge window lasts for two weeks. At the end of this time, Linus
Torvalds will declare that the window is closed and release the first of
the "rc" kernels. For the kernel which is destined to be 2.6.26, for
example, the release which happens at the end of the merge window will be
called 2.6.26-rc1. The -rc1 release is the signal that the time to merge
new features has passed, and that the time to stabilize the next kernel has
begun.
The merge window lasts for approximately two weeks. At the end of this
time, Linus Torvalds will declare that the window is closed and release the
first of the "rc" kernels. For the kernel which is destined to be 2.6.40,
for example, the release which happens at the end of the merge window will
be called 2.6.40-rc1. The -rc1 release is the signal that the time to
merge new features has passed, and that the time to stabilize the next
kernel has begun.
Over the next six to ten weeks, only patches which fix problems should be
submitted to the mainline. On occasion a more significant change will be
@ -66,20 +65,19 @@ will get up to somewhere between -rc6 and -rc9 before the kernel is
considered to be sufficiently stable and the final 2.6.x release is made.
At that point the whole process starts over again.
As an example, here is how the 2.6.25 development cycle went (all dates in
2008):
As an example, here is how the 2.6.38 development cycle went (all dates in
2011):
January 24 2.6.24 stable release
February 10 2.6.25-rc1, merge window closes
February 15 2.6.25-rc2
February 24 2.6.25-rc3
March 4 2.6.25-rc4
March 9 2.6.25-rc5
March 16 2.6.25-rc6
March 25 2.6.25-rc7
April 1 2.6.25-rc8
April 11 2.6.25-rc9
April 16 2.6.25 stable release
January 4 2.6.37 stable release
January 18 2.6.38-rc1, merge window closes
January 21 2.6.38-rc2
February 1 2.6.38-rc3
February 7 2.6.38-rc4
February 15 2.6.38-rc5
February 21 2.6.38-rc6
March 1 2.6.38-rc7
March 7 2.6.38-rc8
March 14 2.6.38 stable release
How do the developers decide when to close the development cycle and create
the stable release? The most significant metric used is the list of
@ -87,7 +85,7 @@ regressions from previous releases. No bugs are welcome, but those which
break systems which worked in the past are considered to be especially
serious. For this reason, patches which cause regressions are looked upon
unfavorably and are quite likely to be reverted during the stabilization
period.
period.
The developers' goal is to fix all known regressions before the stable
release is made. In the real world, this kind of perfection is hard to
@ -99,26 +97,34 @@ kernels 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 comprised of Greg Kroah-Hartman and Chris Wright.
The stable team will release occasional updates to the stable release using
the 2.6.x.y numbering scheme. To be considered for an update release, a
patch must (1) fix a significant bug, and (2) already be merged into the
mainline for the next development kernel. Continuing our 2.6.25 example,
the history (as of this writing) is:
"stable team," currently consisting of Greg Kroah-Hartman. The stable team
will release occasional updates to the stable release using the 2.6.x.y
numbering scheme. To be considered for an update release, a patch must (1)
fix a significant bug, and (2) already be merged into the mainline for the
next development kernel. Kernels will typically receive stable updates for
a little more than one development cycle past their initial release. So,
for example, the 2.6.36 kernel's history looked like:
May 1 2.6.25.1
May 6 2.6.25.2
May 9 2.6.25.3
May 15 2.6.25.4
June 7 2.6.25.5
June 9 2.6.25.6
June 16 2.6.25.7
June 21 2.6.25.8
June 24 2.6.25.9
October 10 2.6.36 stable release
November 22 2.6.36.1
December 9 2.6.36.2
January 7 2.6.36.3
February 17 2.6.36.4
Stable updates for a given kernel are made for approximately six months;
after that, the maintenance of stable releases is solely the responsibility
of the distributors which have shipped that particular kernel.
2.6.36.4 was the final stable update for the 2.6.36 release.
Some kernels are designated "long term" kernels; they will receive support
for a longer period. As of this writing, the current long term kernels
and their maintainers are:
2.6.27 Willy Tarreau (Deep-frozen stable kernel)
2.6.32 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2.6.35 Andi Kleen (Embedded flag kernel)
The selection of a kernel for long-term support is purely a matter of a
maintainer having the need and the time to maintain that release. There
are no known plans for long-term support for any specific upcoming
release.
2.2: THE LIFECYCLE OF A PATCH
@ -130,7 +136,7 @@ each patch implements a change which is desirable to have in the mainline.
This process can happen quickly for minor fixes, or, in the case of large
and controversial changes, go on for years. Much developer frustration
comes from a lack of understanding of this process or from attempts to
circumvent it.
circumvent it.
In the hopes of reducing that frustration, this document will describe how
a patch gets into the kernel. What follows below is an introduction which
@ -193,8 +199,8 @@ involved.
2.3: HOW PATCHES GET INTO THE KERNEL
There is exactly one person who can merge patches into the mainline kernel
repository: Linus Torvalds. But, of the over 12,000 patches which went
into the 2.6.25 kernel, only 250 (around 2%) were directly chosen by Linus
repository: Linus Torvalds. But, of the over 9,500 patches which went
into the 2.6.38 kernel, only 112 (around 1.3%) were directly chosen by Linus
himself. The kernel project has long since grown to a size where no single
developer could possibly inspect and select every patch unassisted. The
way the kernel developers have addressed this growth is through the use of
@ -229,7 +235,7 @@ first in trees dedicated to network device drivers, wireless networking,
etc. This chain of repositories can be arbitrarily long, though it rarely
exceeds two or three links. Since each maintainer in the chain trusts
those managing lower-level trees, this process is known as the "chain of
trust."
trust."
Clearly, in a system like this, getting patches into the kernel depends on
finding the right maintainer. Sending patches directly to Linus is not
@ -254,7 +260,7 @@ The answer comes in the form of -next trees, where subsystem trees are
collected for testing and review. The older of these trees, maintained by
Andrew Morton, is called "-mm" (for memory management, which is how it got
started). The -mm tree integrates patches from a long list of subsystem
trees; it also has some patches aimed at helping with debugging.
trees; it also has some patches aimed at helping with debugging.
Beyond that, -mm contains a significant collection of patches which have
been selected by Andrew directly. These patches may have been posted on a
@ -264,8 +270,8 @@ subsystem tree of last resort; if there is no other obvious path for a
patch into the mainline, it is likely to end up in -mm. Miscellaneous
patches which accumulate in -mm will eventually either be forwarded on to
an appropriate subsystem tree or be sent directly to Linus. In a typical
development cycle, approximately 10% of the patches going into the mainline
get there via -mm.
development cycle, approximately 5-10% of the patches going into the
mainline get there via -mm.
The current -mm patch is available in the "mmotm" (-mm of the moment)
directory at:
@ -275,7 +281,7 @@ directory at:
Use of the MMOTM tree is likely to be a frustrating experience, though;
there is a definite chance that it will not even compile.
The other -next tree, started more recently, is linux-next, maintained by
The primary tree for next-cycle patch merging is linux-next, maintained by
Stephen Rothwell. The linux-next tree is, by design, a snapshot of what
the mainline is expected to look like after the next merge window closes.
Linux-next trees are announced on the linux-kernel and linux-next mailing
@ -287,25 +293,14 @@ Some information about linux-next has been gathered at:
http://linux.f-seidel.de/linux-next/pmwiki/
How the linux-next tree will fit into the development process is still
changing. As of this writing, the first full development cycle involving
linux-next (2.6.26) is coming to an end; thus far, it has proved to be a
valuable resource for finding and fixing integration problems before the
beginning of the merge window. See http://lwn.net/Articles/287155/ for
more information on how linux-next has worked to set up the 2.6.27 merge
window.
Linux-next has become an integral part of the kernel development process;
all patches merged during a given merge window should really have found
their way into linux-next some time before the merge window opens.
Some developers have begun to suggest that linux-next should be used as the
target for future development as well. The linux-next tree does tend to be
far ahead of the mainline and is more representative of the tree into which
any new work will be merged. The downside to this idea is that the
volatility of linux-next tends to make it a difficult development target.
See http://lwn.net/Articles/289013/ for more information on this topic, and
stay tuned; much is still in flux where linux-next is involved.
2.4.1: STAGING TREES
The kernel source tree now contains the drivers/staging/ directory, where
The kernel source tree contains the drivers/staging/ directory, where
many sub-directories for drivers or filesystems that are on their way to
being added to the kernel tree live. They remain in drivers/staging while
they still need more work; once complete, they can be moved into the
@ -313,15 +308,23 @@ kernel proper. This is a way to keep track of drivers that aren't
up to Linux kernel coding or quality standards, but people may want to use
them and track development.
Greg Kroah-Hartman currently (as of 2.6.36) maintains the staging tree.
Drivers that still need work are sent to him, with each driver having
its own subdirectory in drivers/staging/. Along with the driver source
files, a TODO file should be present in the directory as well. The TODO
file lists the pending work that the driver needs for acceptance into
the kernel proper, as well as a list of people that should be Cc'd for any
patches to the driver. Staging drivers that don't currently build should
have their config entries depend upon CONFIG_BROKEN. Once they can
be successfully built without outside patches, CONFIG_BROKEN can be removed.
Greg Kroah-Hartman currently maintains the staging tree. Drivers that
still need work are sent to him, with each driver having its own
subdirectory in drivers/staging/. Along with the driver source files, a
TODO file should be present in the directory as well. The TODO file lists
the pending work that the driver needs for acceptance into the kernel
proper, as well as a list of people that should be Cc'd for any patches to
the driver. Current rules require that drivers contributed to staging
must, at a minimum, compile properly.
Staging can be a relatively easy way to get new drivers into the mainline
where, with luck, they will come to the attention of other developers and
improve quickly. Entry into staging is not the end of the story, though;
code in staging which is not seeing regular progress will eventually be
removed. Distributors also tend to be relatively reluctant to enable
staging drivers. So staging is, at best, a stop on the way toward becoming
a proper mainline driver.
2.5: TOOLS
@ -347,11 +350,7 @@ page at:
http://git-scm.com/
That page has pointers to documentation and tutorials. One should be
aware, in particular, of the Kernel Hacker's Guide to git, which has
information specific to kernel development:
http://linux.yyz.us/git-howto.html
That page has pointers to documentation and tutorials.
Among the kernel developers who do not use git, the most popular choice is
almost certainly Mercurial:
@ -408,7 +407,7 @@ There are a few hints which can help with linux-kernel survival:
important to filter on both the topic of interest (though note that
long-running conversations can drift away from the original subject
without changing the email subject line) and the people who are
participating.
participating.
- Do not feed the trolls. If somebody is trying to stir up an angry
response, ignore them.

31
Documentation/development-process/3.Early-stage
View File

@ -110,8 +110,8 @@ the kernel community's standards. Some examples include:
- The AppArmor security module made use of internal virtual filesystem
data structures in ways which were considered to be unsafe and
unreliable. This code has since been significantly reworked, but
remains outside of the mainline.
unreliable. This concern (among others) kept AppArmor out of the
mainline for years.
In each of these cases, a great deal of pain and extra work could have been
avoided with some early discussion with the kernel developers.
@ -138,6 +138,19 @@ patches, and who, if anybody, is attaching Signed-off-by lines to those
patches. Those are the people who will be best placed to help with a new
development project.
The task of finding the right maintainer is sometimes challenging enough
that the kernel developers have added a script to ease the process:
.../scripts/get_maintainer.pl
This script will return the current maintainer(s) for a given file or
directory when given the "-f" option. If passed a patch on the
command line, it will list the maintainers who should probably receive
copies of the patch. There are a number of options regulating how hard
get_maintainer.pl will search for maintainers; please be careful about
using the more aggressive options as you may end up including developers
who have no real interest in the code you are modifying.
If all else fails, talking to Andrew Morton can be an effective way to
track down a maintainer for a specific piece of code.
@ -155,11 +168,15 @@ reaction, but, instead, little or no reaction at all. The sad truth of the
matter is (1) kernel developers tend to be busy, (2) there is no shortage
of people with grand plans and little code (or even prospect of code) to
back them up, and (3) nobody is obligated to review or comment on ideas
posted by others. If a request-for-comments posting yields little in the
way of comments, do not assume that it means there is no interest in the
project. Unfortunately, you also cannot assume that there are no problems
with your idea. The best thing to do in this situation is to proceed,
keeping the community informed as you go.
posted by others. Beyond that, high-level designs often hide problems
which are only reviewed when somebody actually tries to implement those
designs; for that reason, kernel developers would rather see the code.
If a request-for-comments posting yields little in the way of comments, do
not assume that it means there is no interest in the project.
Unfortunately, you also cannot assume that there are no problems with your
idea. The best thing to do in this situation is to proceed, keeping the
community informed as you go.
3.5: GETTING OFFICIAL BUY-IN

21
Documentation/development-process/4.Coding
View File

@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ classic time/space tradeoff taught in beginning data structures classes
often does not apply to contemporary hardware. Space *is* time, in that a
larger program will run slower than one which is more compact.
More recent compilers take an increasingly active role in deciding whether
a given function should actually be inlined or not. So the liberal
placement of "inline" keywords may not just be excessive; it could also be
irrelevant.
* Locking
@ -285,6 +290,13 @@ be found at https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page if your
distributor does not package it); it can then be run on the code by adding
"C=1" to your make command.
The "Coccinelle" tool (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) is able to find a wide
variety of potential coding problems; it can also propose fixes for those
problems. Quite a few "semantic patches" for the kernel have been packaged
under the scripts/coccinelle directory; running "make coccicheck" will run
through those semantic patches and report on any problems found. See
Documentation/coccinelle.txt for more information.
Other kinds of portability errors are best found by compiling your code for
other architectures. If you do not happen to have an S/390 system or a
Blackfin development board handy, you can still perform the compilation
@ -308,7 +320,9 @@ The first piece of documentation for any patch is its associated
changelog. Log entries should describe the problem being solved, the form
of the solution, the people who worked on the patch, any relevant
effects on performance, and anything else that might be needed to
understand the patch.
understand the patch. Be sure that the changelog says *why* the patch is
worth applying; a surprising number of developers fail to provide that
information.
Any code which adds a new user-space interface - including new sysfs or
/proc files - should include documentation of that interface which enables
@ -321,7 +335,7 @@ boot-time parameters. Any patch which adds new parameters should add the
appropriate entries to this file.
Any new configuration options must be accompanied by help text which
clearly explains the options and when the user might want to select them.
clearly explains the options and when the user might want to select them.
Internal API information for many subsystems is documented by way of
specially-formatted comments; these comments can be extracted and formatted
@ -372,7 +386,8 @@ which is broken by the change. For a widely-used function, this duty can
lead to literally hundreds or thousands of changes - many of which are
likely to conflict with work being done by other developers. Needless to
say, this can be a large job, so it is best to be sure that the
justification is solid.
justification is solid. Note that the Coccinelle tool can help with
wide-ranging API changes.
When making an incompatible API change, one should, whenever possible,
ensure that code which has not been updated is caught by the compiler.

28
Documentation/development-process/5.Posting
View File

@ -60,12 +60,15 @@ even in the short term.
Patches must be prepared against a specific version of the kernel. As a
general rule, a patch should be based on the current mainline as found in
Linus's git tree. It may become necessary to make versions against -mm,
linux-next, or a subsystem tree, though, to facilitate wider testing and
review. Depending on the area of your patch and what is going on
elsewhere, basing a patch against these other trees can require a
significant amount of work resolving conflicts and dealing with API
changes.
Linus's git tree. When basing on mainline, start with a well-known release
point - a stable or -rc release - rather than branching off the mainline at
an arbitrary spot.
It may become necessary to make versions against -mm, linux-next, or a
subsystem tree, though, to facilitate wider testing and review. Depending
on the area of your patch and what is going on elsewhere, basing a patch
against these other trees can require a significant amount of work
resolving conflicts and dealing with API changes.
Only the most simple changes should be formatted as a single patch;
everything else should be made as a logical series of changes. Splitting
@ -100,11 +103,11 @@ rules of thumb, however, which can help considerably:
result is a broken kernel, you will make life harder for developers and
users who are engaging in the noble work of tracking down problems.
- Do not overdo it, though. One developer recently posted a set of edits
- Do not overdo it, though. One developer once posted a set of edits
to a single file as 500 separate patches - an act which did not make him
the most popular person on the kernel mailing list. A single patch can
be reasonably large as long as it still contains a single *logical*
change.
change.
- It can be tempting to add a whole new infrastructure with a series of
patches, but to leave that infrastructure unused until the final patch
@ -162,7 +165,8 @@ To that end, the summary line should describe the effects of and motivation
for the change as well as possible given the one-line constraint. The
detailed description can then amplify on those topics and provide any
needed additional information. If the patch fixes a bug, cite the commit
which introduced the bug if possible. If a problem is associated with
which introduced the bug if possible (and please provide both the commit ID
and the title when citing commits). If a problem is associated with
specific log or compiler output, include that output to help others
searching for a solution to the same problem. If the change is meant to
support other changes coming in later patch, say so. If internal APIs are
@ -230,7 +234,7 @@ take care of:
which have had gratuitous white-space changes or line wrapping performed
by the mail client will not apply at the other end, and often will not
be examined in any detail. If there is any doubt at all, mail the patch
to yourself and convince yourself that it shows up intact.
to yourself and convince yourself that it shows up intact.
Documentation/email-clients.txt has some helpful hints on making
specific mail clients work for sending patches.
@ -287,7 +291,7 @@ something like:
where "nn" is the ordinal number of the patch, "mm" is the total number of
patches in the series, and "subsys" is the name of the affected subsystem.
Clearly, nn/mm can be omitted for a single, standalone patch.
Clearly, nn/mm can be omitted for a single, standalone patch.
If you have a significant series of patches, it is customary to send an
introductory description as part zero. This convention is not universally
@ -299,5 +303,5 @@ In general, the second and following parts of a multi-part patch should be
sent as a reply to the first part so that they all thread together at the
receiving end. Tools like git and quilt have commands to mail out a set of
patches with the proper threading. If you have a long series, though, and
are using git, please provide the --no-chain-reply-to option to avoid
are using git, please stay away from the --chain-reply-to option to avoid
creating exceptionally deep nesting.

16
Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
View File

@ -66,6 +66,11 @@ be easy to become blinded by your own solution to a problem to the point
that you don't realize that something is fundamentally wrong or, perhaps,
you're not even solving the right problem.
Andrew Morton has suggested that every review comment which does not result
in a code change should result in an additional code comment instead; that
can help future reviewers avoid the questions which came up the first time
around.
One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
go away. They will not go away. If you repost code without having
responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
@ -100,7 +105,7 @@ entry into a subsystem maintainer's tree. How that works varies from one
subsystem to the next; each maintainer has his or her own way of doing
things. In particular, there may be more than one tree - one, perhaps,
dedicated to patches planned for the next merge window, and another for
longer-term work.
longer-term work.
For patches applying to areas for which there is no obvious subsystem tree
(memory management patches, for example), the default tree often ends up
@ -109,11 +114,10 @@ through the -mm tree.
Inclusion into a subsystem tree can bring a higher level of visibility to a
patch. Now other developers working with that tree will get the patch by
default. Subsystem trees typically feed into -mm and linux-next as well,
making their contents visible to the development community as a whole. At
this point, there's a good chance that you will get more comments from a
new set of reviewers; these comments need to be answered as in the previous
round.
default. Subsystem trees typically feed linux-next as well, making their
contents visible to the development community as a whole. At this point,
there's a good chance that you will get more comments from a new set of
reviewers; these comments need to be answered as in the previous round.
What may also happen at this point, depending on the nature of your patch,
is that conflicts with work being done by others turn up. In the worst

4
Documentation/development-process/7.AdvancedTopics
View File

@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ can affect your ability to get trees pulled in the future. Quoting Linus:
to trust things *without* then having to go and check every
individual change by hand.
(http://lwn.net/Articles/224135/).
(http://lwn.net/Articles/224135/).
To avoid this kind of situation, ensure that all patches within a given
branch stick closely to the associated topic; a "driver fixes" branch
@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ When requesting a pull, be sure to give all the relevant information: where
your tree is, what branch to pull, and what changes will result from the
pull. The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will
format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be
sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server.
sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server.
7.2: REVIEWING PATCHES