[PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post co-dependent series

[PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post co-dependent series

[Jakub Kicinski]

Make an explicit suggestion how to post user space side of kernel
patches to avoid reposts when patchwork groups the wrong patches.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
index 21537766be4d..553eda8da9c7 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -254,6 +254,26 @@ you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a
 minimum, your changes should survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an
 ``allmodconfig`` build without new warnings or failures.
 
+Q: How do I post corresponding changes to user space components?
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+A: Kernel patches often come with support in user space tooling
+(e.g. `iproute2`). It's best to post both kernel and user space
+code at the same time, so that reviewers have a chance to see how
+user space side looks when reviewing kernel code.
+If user space tooling lives in a separate repository kernel and user
+space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted
+to the mailing list, e.g.::
+
+  [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: some feature cover letter
+   └─ [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: some feature prep
+   └─ [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: some feature do it
+   └─ [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftest: net: some feature
+
+  [PATCH iproute2-next] ip: add support for some feature
+
+Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork
+(as of patchwork 2.2.2).
+
 Q: Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 A: Attention to detail.  Re-read your own work as if you were the
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post co-dependent series

[Florian Fainelli]

On 11/24/2020 3:57 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Make an explicit suggestion how to post user space side of kernel
> patches to avoid reposts when patchwork groups the wrong patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>

The examples are good, that makes it pretty clear, thanks!
-- 
Florian

Re: [PATCH net] Documentation: netdev-FAQ: suggest how to post co-dependent series

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:08 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Make an explicit suggestion how to post user space side of kernel
> patches to avoid reposts when patchwork groups the wrong patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> index 21537766be4d..553eda8da9c7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
> @@ -254,6 +254,26 @@ you will have done run-time testing specific to your change, but at a
>  minimum, your changes should survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an
>  ``allmodconfig`` build without new warnings or failures.
>
> +Q: How do I post corresponding changes to user space components?
> +----------------------------------------------------------------
> +A: Kernel patches often come with support in user space tooling
> +(e.g. `iproute2`). It's best to post both kernel and user space
> +code at the same time, so that reviewers have a chance to see how
> +user space side looks when reviewing kernel code.
> +If user space tooling lives in a separate repository kernel and user
> +space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted
> +to the mailing list, e.g.::
> +
> +  [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: some feature cover letter
> +   └─ [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: some feature prep
> +   └─ [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: some feature do it
> +   └─ [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftest: net: some feature
> +
> +  [PATCH iproute2-next] ip: add support for some feature

That's a good suggestion for iproute2 vs kernel patches
that actually live in separate repos.
When kernel and user components (like in often happens in bpf world)
happen to be in one repo it's better to keep them as a single patch set.
So it would be good to clarify in the above paragraph.

> +
> +Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork
> +(as of patchwork 2.2.2).

Right. Not as much patchwork, but kernel.org special email processing
pipeline that has an auto-delegation feature.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/infra/patchwork/procmail.git/tree/netdevbpf.rc
Not sure whether doc needs to go to this level of details.