[PATCH v4 0/3] docs: add two texts covering regressions

[PATCH v4 0/3] docs: add two texts covering regressions

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

"We don't cause regressions" might be the first rule of Linux kernel
development, but it and other aspects of regressions nevertheless are hardly
described in the Linux kernel's documentation. The following patches change
this by creating two documents dedicated to the topic.

The second patch could easily be folded into the first one, but was kept
separate, as it might be a bit controversial. This also allows the patch
description to explain some backgrounds for this part of the document.
Additionally, ACKs and Reviewed-by tags can be collected separately this way.

v4 (this version):
- countless small and medium changes after review feedback from Jon (thx), which
  also lead to a big change:
- split the document into two, one for users and one for developers (both added
  by the first patch, as they are interlinked)
- fixed and improved a bunch of areas I stumbled upon while checking the text
  again after the split
- add a third patch to get one of the user-centric document on regressions
  mentioned in Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
- note: the content added by the second patch did not change significantly,
  that's why I left an earlier reviewed-by for the patch and an ACK for the
  series in place there, but dropped the ACK for the first patch of the series

v3 (https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/cover.1643110442.git.linux@leemhuis.info/):
- drop RFC tag
- heavily reshuffled and slightly adjusted the text in the sections "The
  important bits for people fixing regressions" and "How to add a regression to
  regzbot's tracking somebody else reported?" to make them easier to grasp
- a few small fixes and improvements
- add ACK for the series from Greg (now for real)

v2/RFC (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/cover.1641565030.git.linux@leemhuis.info/):
- a lot of small fixes, most are for spelling mistakes and grammar
  errors/problems pointed out in the review feedback I got so far
- add ACK for the series from Greg

v1/RFC (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/cover.1641203216.git.linux@leemhuis.info/):
- initial version

---

Hi! Here is a updated version of my patch-set adding documentation regarding
regression. This bring bigger changes after Jon took a look and suggested
splitting the text up. I did that and changed a bunch of other things along the
way. But I for now decided against splitting off the regression tracking stuff
into one or two other documents, as suggested by Jon, as that IMHO distributes
the information over too many places.

Ciao, Thorsten

Thorsten Leemhuis (3):
  docs: add two documents about regression handling
  docs: regressions*rst: rules of thumb for handling regressions
  docs: reporting-issues.rst: link new document about regressions

 Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst           |   1 +
 .../admin-guide/regressions-users.rst         | 448 +++++++++++
 .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst          |  60 +-
 Documentation/process/index.rst               |   1 +
 Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst    | 753 ++++++++++++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                   |   2 +
 6 files changed, 1234 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
 create mode 100644 Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst


base-commit: b8f4eee6a630ef8c5f00594e25c377463b4f299c
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v4 1/3] docs: add two documents about regression handling

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Create two documents explaining various aspects around regression
handling and tracking; one is aimed at users, the other targets
developers.

The texts among others describe the first rule of Linux kernel
development and what it means in practice. They also explain what a
regression actually is and how to report one properly.

Both texts additionally provide a brief introduction to the bot the
kernel's regression tracker uses to facilitate the work, but mention the
use is optional.

To sum things up, provide a few quotes from Linus in the document for
developers to show how serious he takes regressions.

Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
 Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst           |   1 +
 .../admin-guide/regressions-users.rst         | 436 ++++++++++++
 Documentation/process/index.rst               |   1 +
 Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst    | 672 ++++++++++++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                   |   2 +
 5 files changed, 1112 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
 create mode 100644 Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
index 1bedab498104..5cb1f46c8626 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ problems and bugs in particular.
    :maxdepth: 1
 
    reporting-issues
+   regressions-users
    security-bugs
    bug-hunting
    bug-bisect
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d32f446e9651
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,436 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)
+.. [see the bottom of this file for redistribution information]
+
+Regressions: everything users want to know
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+"*We don't cause regressions*" is the first rule of Linux kernel development;
+Linux founder and lead developer Linus Torvalds established it himself and
+ensures it's obeyed.
+
+This document describes what the rule means for users and how the Linux kernel's
+development model ensures to address all reported regressions; aspects relevant
+for kernel developers are left to Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst.
+
+
+The important bits (aka "TL;DR")
+================================
+
+#. It's a regression if something running fine with one Linux kernel works worse
+   or not at all with a newer version. Note, the newer kernel has to be compiled
+   using a similar configuration; the detailed explanations below describes this
+   and other fine print in more detail.
+
+#. Report your issue as outlined in Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst,
+   it already covers all aspects important for regressions and repeated
+   below for convenience. Two of them: start your report's subject with
+   "[REGRESSION]" and CC or forward it to `the regression mailing list
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_ (regressions@lists.linux.dev).
+
+#. Optional, but recommended: when sending or forwarding your report, make the
+   Linux kernel regression tracking bot "regzbot" track the issue by specifying
+   when the regression started like this::
+
+       #regzbot introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1
+
+
+All the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for users
+==============================================================
+
+
+The important basics
+--------------------
+
+
+What is a "regression" and what is the "no regressions rule"?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+It's 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 "no regressions rule" forbids this to take place; if
+it happens by accident, developers that caused it are expected to quickly fix
+the issue.
+
+It thus is a regression when a WiFi driver from Linux 5.13 works fine, but with
+5.14 doesn't work at all, works significantly slower, or misbehaves somehow.
+It's also a regression if a perfectly working application suddenly shows erratic
+behavior with a newer kernel version; such issues can be caused by changes in
+procfs, sysfs, or one of the many other interfaces Linux provides to userland
+software. But keep in mind, as mentioned earlier: 5.14 in this example needs to
+be built from a configuration similar to the one from 5.13. This can be achieved
+using ``make olddefconfig``, as explained in more detail below.
+
+Note the "practical use case" in the first sentence of this section: developers
+despite the "no regressions" rule are free to change any aspect of the kernel
+and even APIs or ABIs to userland, as long as no existing application or use
+case breaks.
+
+Also be aware the "no regressions" rule covers only interfaces the kernel
+provides to the userland. It thus does not apply to kernel-internal interfaces
+like the module API, which some externally developed drivers use to hook into
+the kernel.
+
+How do I report a regression?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Just report the issue as outlined in
+Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst, it already describes the
+important points. The following aspects described there are especially relevant
+for regressions:
+
+ * When checking for existing reports to join, also search the `archives of the
+   Linux regressions mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_ and
+   `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_.
+
+ * Start your report's subject with "[REGRESSION]".
+
+ * In your report, clearly mention the last kernel version that worked fine and
+   the first broken one. Ideally try to find the exact change causing the
+   regression using a bisection, as explained below in more detail.
+
+ * Remember to let the Linux regressions mailing list
+   (regressions@lists.linux.dev) know about your report:
+
+   * If you report the regression by mail, CC the regressions list.
+
+   * If you report your regression to some bug tracker, forward the submitted
+     report by mail to the regressions list while CCing the maintainer and the
+     mailing list for the subsystem in question.
+
+   If it's a regression within a stable or longterm series (e.g.
+   v5.15.3..v5.15.5), remember to CC the Linux stable mailing list
+   (stable@vger.kernel.org).
+
+  In case you performed a successful bisection, add everyone to the CC the
+  culprit's commit message mentions in lines starting with "Signed-off-by:".
+
+When CCing for forwarding your report to the list, consider directly telling the
+aforementioned Linux kernel regression tracking bot about your report. To do
+that, include a paragraph like this in your mail::
+
+       #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
+
+Regzbot will then consider your mail a report for a regression introduced in the
+specified version range. In above case Linux v5.13 still worked fine and Linux
+v5.14-rc1 was the first version where you encountered the issue. If you
+performed a bisection to find the commit that caused the regression, specify the
+culprit's commit-id instead::
+
+       #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5d
+
+Placing such a "regzbot command" is in your interest, as it will ensure the
+report won't fall through the cracks unnoticed. If you omit this, the Linux
+kernel's regressions tracker will take care of telling regzbot about your
+regression, as long as you send a copy to the regressions mailing lists. But the
+regression tracker is just one human which sometimes has to rest or occasionally
+might even enjoy some time away from computers (as crazy as that might sound).
+Relying on this person thus will result in an unnecessary delay before the
+regressions becomes mentioned `on the list of tracked and unresolved Linux
+kernel regressions <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_ and the
+weekly regression reports sent by regzbot. Such delays can result in Linus
+Torvalds being unaware of important regressions when deciding between "continue
+development or call this finished and release the final?".
+
+Are really all regressions fixed?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Nearly all of them are, as long as the change causing the regression (the
+"culprit commit") is reliably identified. Some regressions can be fixed without
+this, but often it's required.
+
+Who needs to find the root cause of a regression?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Developers of the affected code area should try to locate the culprit on their
+own. But for them that's often impossible to do with reasonable effort, as quite
+a lot of issues only occur in a particular environment outside the developer's
+reach -- for example, a specific hardware platform, firmware, Linux distro,
+system's configuration, or application. That's why in the end it's often up to
+the reporter to locate the culprit commit; sometimes users might even need to
+run additional tests afterwards to pinpoint the exact root cause. Developers
+should offer advice and reasonably help where they can, to make this process
+relatively easy and achievable for typical users.
+
+How can I find the culprit?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Perform a bisection, as roughly outlined in
+Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst and described in more detail by
+Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst. It might sound like a lot of work, but
+in many cases finds the culprit relatively quickly. If it's hard or
+time-consuming to reliably reproduce the issue, consider teaming up with other
+affected users to narrow down the search range together.
+
+Who can I ask for advice when it comes to regressions?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while
+CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the
+issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.
+
+
+Additional details about regressions
+------------------------------------
+
+
+What is the goal of the "no regressions rule"?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Users should feel safe when updating kernel versions and not have to worry
+something might break. This is in the interest of the kernel developers to make
+updating attractive: they don't want users to stay on stable or longterm Linux
+series that are either abandoned or more than one and a half years old. That's
+in everybody's interest, as `those series might have known bugs, security
+issues, or other problematic aspects already fixed in later versions
+<http://www.kroah.com/log/blog/2018/08/24/what-stable-kernel-should-i-use/>`_.
+Additionally, the kernel developers want to make it simple and appealing for
+users to test the latest pre-release or regular release. That's also in
+everybody's interest, as it's a lot easier to track down and fix problems, if
+they are reported shortly after being introduced.
+
+Is the "no regressions" rule really adhered in practice?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+It's taken really serious, as can be seen by many mailing list posts from Linux
+creator and lead developer Linus Torvalds, some of which are quoted in
+Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst.
+
+Exceptions to this rule are extremely rare; in the past developers almost always
+turned out to be wrong when they assumed a particular situation was warranting
+an exception.
+
+Who ensures the "no regressions" is actually followed?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The subsystem maintainers should take care of that, which are watched and
+supported by the tree maintainers -- e.g. Linus Torvalds for mainline and
+Greg Kroah-Hartman et al. for various stable/longterm series.
+
+All of them are helped by people trying to ensure no regression report falls
+through the cracks. One of them is Thorsten Leemhuis, who's currently acting as
+the Linux kernel's "regressions tracker"; to facilitate this work he relies on
+regzbot, the Linux kernel regression tracking bot. That's why you want to bring
+your report on the radar of these people by CCing or forwarding each report to
+the regressions mailing list, ideally with a "regzbot command" in your mail to
+get it tracked.
+
+Is it a regression, if the issue can be avoided by updating some software?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Almost always: yes. If a developer tells you otherwise, ask the regression
+tracker for advice as outlined above.
+
+Is it a regression, if a newer kernel works slower or consumes more energy?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Yes, but the difference has to be significant. A five percent slow-down in a
+micro-benchmark thus is unlikely to qualify as regression, unless it also
+influences the results of a broad benchmark by more than one percent. If in
+doubt, ask for advice.
+
+Is it a regression, if an external kernel module breaks when updating Linux?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+No, as the "no regression" rule is about interfaces and services the Linux
+kernel provides to the userland. It thus does not cover building or running
+externally developed kernel modules, as they run in kernel-space and hook into
+the kernel using internal interfaces occasionally changed.
+
+How are regressions handled that are caused by security fixes?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In extremely rare situations security issues can't be fixed without causing
+regressions; those are given way, as they are the lesser evil in the end.
+Luckily this middling almost always can be avoided, as key developers for the
+affected area and often Linus Torvalds himself try very hard to fix security
+issues without causing regressions.
+
+If you nevertheless face such a case, check the mailing list archives if people
+tried their best to avoid the regression; if in doubt, ask for advice as
+outlined above.
+
+What happens if fixing a regression is impossible without causing another?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Sadly these things happen, but luckily not very often; if they occur, expert
+developers of the affected code area should look into the issue to find a fix
+that avoids regressions or at least their impact. If you run into such a
+situation, do what was outlined already for regressions caused by security
+fixes: check earlier discussions if people already tried their best and ask for
+advice if in doubt.
+
+A quick note while at it: these situations could be avoided, if people would
+regularly give mainline pre-releases (say v5.15-rc1 or -rc3) from each cycle a
+test run. This is best explained by imagining a change integrated between Linux
+v5.14 and v5.15-rc1 which causes a regression, but at the same time is a hard
+requirement for some other improvement applied for 5.15-rc1. All these changes
+often can simply be reverted and the regression thus solved, if someone finds
+and reports it before 5.15 is released. A few days or weeks later this solution
+can become impossible, as some software might have started to rely on aspects
+introduced by one of the follow-up changes: reverting all changes would then
+cause a regression for users of said software and thus is out of the question.
+
+Is it a regression, if some feature I relied on was removed months ago?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+It does, but often it's hard to fix such regressions due to the aspects outlined
+in the previous section. It hence needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case
+basis. This is another reason why it's in everybody's interest to regularly test
+mainline pre-releases.
+
+Does the "no regression" rule apply if I seem to be the only affected person?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+It does, but only for practical usage: the Linux developers want to be free to
+remove support for hardware only to be found in attics and museums anymore.
+
+Note, sometimes regressions can't be avoided to make progress -- and the latter
+is needed to prevent Linux from stagnation. Hence, if only very few users seem
+to be affected by a regression, it for the greater good might be in their and
+everyone else's interest to lettings things pass. Especially if there is an
+easy way to circumvent the regression somehow, for example by updating some
+software or using a kernel parameter created just for this purpose.
+
+Does the regression rule apply for code in the staging tree as well?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Not according to the `help text for the configuration option covering all
+staging code <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/staging/Kconfig>`_,
+which since its early days states::
+
+       Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or
+       may not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely
+       will be changed in the near future.
+
+The staging developers nevertheless often adhere to the "no regressions" rule,
+but sometimes bend it to make progress. That's for example why some users had to
+deal with (often negligible) regressions when a WiFi driver from the staging
+tree was replaced by a totally different one written from scratch.
+
+Why do later versions have to be "compiled with a similar configuration"?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Because the Linux kernel developers sometimes integrate changes known to cause
+regressions, but make them optional and disable them in the kernel's default
+configuration. This trick allows progress, as the "no regressions" rule
+otherwise would lead to stagnation.
+
+Consider for example a new security feature blocking access to some kernel
+interfaces often abused by malware, which at the same time are required to run a
+few rarely used applications. The outlined approach makes both camps happy:
+people using these applications can leave the new security feature off, while
+everyone else can enable it without running into trouble.
+
+How to create a configuration similar to the one of an older kernel?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Start your machine with a known-good kernel and configure the newer Linux
+version with ``make olddefconfig``. This makes the kernel's build scripts pick
+up the configuration file (the ".config" file) from the running kernel as base
+for the new one you are about to compile; afterwards they set all new
+configuration options to their default value, which should disable new features
+that might cause regressions.
+
+Can I report a regression I found with pre-compiled vanilla kernels?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You need to ensure the newer kernel was compiled with a similar configuration
+file as the older one (see above), as those that built them might have enabled
+some known-to-be incompatible feature for the newer kernel. If in doubt, report
+the matter to the kernel's provider and ask for advice.
+
+
+More about regression tracking with "regzbot"
+---------------------------------------------
+
+What is regression tracking and why should I care about it?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Rules like "no regressions" need someone to ensure they are followed, otherwise
+they are broken either accidentally or on purpose. History has shown this to be
+true for Linux kernel development as well. That's why Thorsten Leemhuis, the
+Linux Kernel's regression tracker, and some people try to ensure all regression
+are fixed by keeping an eye on them until they are resolved. Neither of them are
+paid for this, that's why the work is done on a best effort basis.
+
+Why and how are Linux kernel regressions tracked using a bot?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Tracking regressions completely manually has proven to be quite hard due to the
+distributed and loosely structured nature of Linux kernel development process.
+That's why the Linux kernel's regression tracker developed regzbot to facilitate
+the work, with the long term goal to automate regression tracking as much as
+possible for everyone involved.
+
+Regzbot works by watching for replies to reports of tracked regressions.
+Additionally, it's looking out for posted or committed patches referencing such
+reports with "Link:" tags; replies to such patch postings are tracked as well.
+Combined this data provides good insights into the current state of the fixing
+process.
+
+How to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Check out `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_.
+
+What kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The bot is meant to track regressions, hence please don't involve regzbot for
+ordinary issues.
+
+How to change aspects of a tracked regression?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+By using a 'regzbot command' in a direct or indirect reply to the mail with the
+report. The easiest way to do that: find the report in your "Sent" folder or the
+mailing list archive and reply to it using your mailer's "Reply-all" function.
+In that mail, use one of the following commands in a stand-alone paragraph (IOW:
+use blank lines to separate one or multiple of these commands from the rest of
+the mail's text).
+
+ * Update when the regression started to happen, for example after performing a
+   bisection::
+
+       #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5d
+
+ * Set or update the title::
+
+       #regzbot title: foo
+
+ * Monitor a discussion or bugzilla.kernel.org ticket where additions aspects of
+   the issue or a fix are discussed:::
+
+       #regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
+       #regzbot monitor: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789
+
+ * Point to a place with further details of interest, like a mailing list post
+   or a ticket in a bug tracker that are slightly related, but about a different
+   topic::
+
+       #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789
+
+ * Mark a regression as invalid::
+
+       #regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed
+
+Regzbot supports a few other commands primarily used by developers or people
+tracking regressions. They and more details about the aforementioned regzbot
+commands can be found in the `getting started guide
+<https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>`_ and
+the `reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_
+for regzbot.
+
+..
+   end-of-content
+..
+   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
+   this as source:
+   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
+..
+   Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
+   is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
+   (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
+   files which use a more restrictive license.
diff --git a/Documentation/process/index.rst b/Documentation/process/index.rst
index 9f1b88492bb3..750ef43f2f0d 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/index.rst
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ Below are the essential guides that every developer should read.
    submitting-patches
    programming-language
    coding-style
+   regressions-devs
    maintainer-handbooks
    maintainer-pgp-guide
    email-clients
diff --git a/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst b/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..7eb66304a694
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,672 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)
+.. See the bottom of this file for additional redistribution information.
+
+Regressions: what developers should know
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+*We don't cause regressions* -- this document describes what this "first rule of
+Linux kernel development" means in practice for developers. It complements
+Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst, which covers the topic from a
+user's point of view; if you never read that text, go and at least skim over it
+before continuing here.
+
+The important bits (aka "The TL;DR")
+====================================
+
+#. Ensure subscribers of the `regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
+   (regressions@lists.linux.dev) quickly become aware of any new regression
+   report:
+
+    * When receiving a mailed report that did not CC the list, bring it into the
+      loop by immediately sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list
+      CCed.
+
+    * Forward or bounce any reports filed in bug trackers to the list.
+
+#. Make the Linux kernel regression tracking bot "regzbot" track the issue (this
+   is optional, but recommended):
+
+    * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a line like ``#regzbot
+      introduced v5.13..v5.14-rc1``. If not, send a reply (with the regressions
+      list in CC) containing a paragraph like the following, which tells regzbot
+      when the issue started to happen::
+
+       #regzbot ^introduced 1f2e3d4c5b6a
+
+    * When forwarding reports from a bug tracker to the regressions list (see
+      above), include a paragraph like the following::
+
+       #regzbot introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
+       #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
+       #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
+
+#. When submitting fixes for regressions, add "Link:" tags to the patch
+   description pointing to all places where the issue was reported, as
+   mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
+   :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`.
+
+
+All the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for developers
+===================================================================
+
+
+The important basics in more detail
+-----------------------------------
+
+
+What to do when receiving regression reports
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Ensure the Linux kernel's regression tracker and others subscribers of the
+`regression mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/>`_
+(regressions@lists.linux.dev) become aware of any newly reported regression:
+
+ * When you receive a report by mail that did not CC the list, immediately bring
+   it into the loop by sending at least a brief "Reply-all" with the list CCed;
+   try to ensure it gets CCed again in case you reply to a reply that omitted
+   the list.
+
+ * If a report filed in a bug tracker hits your Inbox, forward or bounce it to
+   the list. Consider checking the list archives beforehand, if the reporter
+   already forwarded the report as instructed by
+   Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst.
+
+When doing either, consider making the Linux kernel regression tracking bot
+"regzbot" immediately start tracking the issue:
+
+ * For mailed reports, check if the reporter included a "regzbot command" like
+   ``#regzbot introduced 1f2e3d4c5b6a``. If not, send a reply (with the
+   regressions list in CC) with a paragraph like the following:::
+
+       #regzbot ^introduced: v5.13..v5.14-rc1
+
+   This tells regzbot the version range in which the issue started to happen;
+   you can specify a range using commit-ids as well or state a single commit-id
+   in case the reporter bisected the culprit.
+
+   Note the caret (^) before the "introduced": it tells regzbot to treat the
+   parent mail (the one you reply to) as the initial report for the regression
+   you want to see tracked; that's important, as regzbot will later look out
+   for patches with "Link:" tags pointing to the report in the archives on
+   lore.kernel.org.
+
+ * When forwarding a regressions reported to a bug tracker, include a paragraph
+   with these regzbot commands::
+
+       #regzbot introduced: 1f2e3d4c5b6a
+       #regzbot from: Some N. Ice Human <some.human@example.com>
+       #regzbot monitor: http://some.bugtracker.example.com/ticket?id=123456789
+
+   Regzbot will then automatically associate patches with the report that
+   contain "Link:" tags pointing to your mail or the mentioned ticket.
+
+What's important when fixing regressions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You don't need to do anything special when submitting fixes for regression, just
+ensure doing what Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
+:ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>` already
+explain: add "Link:" tags to your patch description pointing to all places where
+the issue was reported like this::
+
+       Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
+       Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1234567890
+
+This is expected from developers, as these pointers are of great value when you
+or others might need to look into the fix months or years later; these links are
+also crucial for tools and scripts like regzbot, as it allows them to associate
+changes with reports that were mailed or submitted to bug trackers.
+
+More aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+Whom to ask for advice when it comes to regressions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while
+CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the
+issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.
+
+
+How to deal with changes where a risk of regression is known
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Evaluate how big the risk of regressions is, for example by performing a code
+search in Linux distributions and Git forges. Also consider asking other
+developers or projects likely to be affected to evaluate or even test the
+proposed change; if problems surface, maybe some solution acceptable for all
+can be found.
+
+If the risk of regressions in the end seems to be relatively small, go ahead
+with the change, but let all involved parties know about the risk. Hence, make
+sure your patch description makes this aspect obvious. Once the change is
+merged, tell the Linux kernel's regression tracker and the regressions mailing
+list about the risk, so everyone has the change on the radar in case reports
+trickle in. Depending on the risk, you also might want to ask the subsystem
+maintainer to mention the issue in his mainline pull request.
+
+What else is there to known about regressions?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Check out Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst, it covers a lot of
+other aspects you want might want to be aware of:
+
+ * the purpose of the "no regressions rule"
+
+ * what issues actually qualify as regression
+
+ * who's in charge for finding the root cause of a regression
+
+ * how to handle tricky situations, e.g. when a regression is caused by a
+   security fix or when fixing a regression might cause another one
+
+
+More about regression tracking and regzbot
+------------------------------------------
+
+
+Why the Linux kernel has a regression tracker, and why is regzbot used?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Rules like "no regressions" need someone to ensure they are followed, otherwise
+they are broken either accidentally or on purpose. History has shown this to be
+true for the Linux kernel as well. That's why Thorsten Leemhuis volunteered to
+keep an eye on things as the Linux kernel's regression tracker, who's
+occasionally helped by other people. Neither of them are paid to do this,
+that's why regression tracking is done on a best effort basis.
+
+Earlier attempts to manually track regressions have shown it's an exhausting and
+frustrating work, which is why they were abandoned after a while. To prevent this
+from happening again, Thorsten developed regzbot to facilitate the work, with the
+long term goal to automate regression tracking as much as possible for everyone
+involved.
+
+How does regression tracking work with regzbot?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The bot watches for replies to reports of tracked regressions. Additionally,
+it's looking out for posted or committed patches referencing such reports
+with "Link:" tags; replies to such patch postings are tracked as well.
+Combined this data provides good insights into the current state of the fixing
+process.
+
+Regzbot tries to do its job with as little overhead as possible for both
+reporters and developers. In fact, only reporters are burdened with an extra
+duty: they need to tell regzbot about the regression report using the ``#regzbot
+introduced`` command outlined above; if they don't do that, someone else can
+take care of that using ``#regzbot ^introduced``.
+
+For developers there normally is no extra work involved, they just need to make
+sure to do something that was expected long before regzbot came to light: add
+"Link:" tags to the patch description pointing to all reports about the issue
+fixed.
+
+Do I have to use regzbot?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+It's in the interest of everyone if you do, as kernel maintainers like Linus
+Torvalds partly rely on regzbot's tracking in their work -- for example when
+deciding to release a new version or extend the development phase. For this they
+need to be aware of all unfixed regression; to do that, Linus is known to look
+into the weekly reports sent by regzbot.
+
+Do I have to tell regzbot about every regression I stumble upon?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Ideally yes: we are all humans and easily forget problems when something more
+important unexpectedly comes up -- for example a bigger problem in the Linux
+kernel or something in real life that's keeping us away from keyboards for a
+while. Hence, it's best to tell regzbot about every regression, except when you
+immediately write a fix and commit it to a tree regularly merged to the affected
+kernel series.
+
+How to see which regressions regzbot tracks currently?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Check `regzbot's web-interface <https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/regzbot/>`_
+for the latest info; alternatively, `search for the latest regression report
+<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=%22Linux+regressions+report%22+f%3Aregzbot>`_,
+which regzbot normally sends out once a week on Sunday evening (UTC), which is a
+few hours before Linus usually publishes new (pre-)releases.
+
+What places is regzbot monitoring?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Regzbot is watching the most important Linux mailing lists as well as the git
+repositories of linux-next, mainline, and stable/longterm.
+
+What kind of issues are supposed to be tracked by regzbot?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The bot is meant to track regressions, hence please don't involve regzbot for
+ordinary issues. But it's totally okay for the kernel's regression tracker if
+developers involve regzbot to not forget about severe issues, like reports about
+hangs, corrupted data, or internal errors (Panic, Oops, BUG(), warning, ...).
+
+Can I add regressions found by CI systems to regzbot's tracking?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Feel free to do so, if the particular regression likely has impact on practical
+use cases and thus might be noticed by users; hence, please don't involve
+regzbot for theoretical regressions unlikely to show themselves in real world
+usage.
+
+How to interact with regzbot?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+By using a regzbot command in a reply to the mail with the report or a reply to
+the latter. These commands need to be in their own paragraph (IOW: they need to
+be separated from the rest of the mail using blank lines).
+
+One such command is ``#regzbot introduced <version or commit>``,
+which adds a report to the tracking, as already described above;
+``#regzbot ^introduced <version or commit>`` is another such command,
+which makes regzbot consider the parent mail as a report for a regression
+which it starts to track.
+
+Once one of those two commands has been utilized, other regzbot commands can be
+used in direct or indirect replies to the report. You can write them below one
+of the `introduced` commands or in replies to the mail that used one of them
+or itself is a reply to that mail:
+
+ * Set or update the title::
+
+       #regzbot title: foo
+
+ * Link to a related discussion (for example the posting of a patch to fix the
+   issue) or bug ticket and monitor it::
+
+       #regzbot monitor: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
+
+   Monitoring only works for lore.kernel.org and bugzilla.kernel.org; regzbot
+   will consider all messages in that thread or ticket as related to the fixing
+   process.
+
+ * Point to a place with further details, like a bug tracker or a related
+   mailing list post::
+
+       #regzbot link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123456789
+
+ * Mark a regression as fixed by a commit that is heading upstream or already
+   landed::
+
+       #regzbot fixed-by: 1f2e3d4c5d
+
+ * Mark a regression as a duplicate of another one already tracked by regzbot::
+
+       #regzbot dup-of: https://lore.kernel.org/all/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
+
+ * Mark a regression as invalid::
+
+       #regzbot invalid: wasn't a regression, problem has always existed
+
+Is there more to tell about regzbot and its commands?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+More detailed and up-to-date information about the Linux
+kernel's regression tracking bot can be found on its
+`project page <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot>`_, which among others
+contains a `getting started guide <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/getting_started.md>`_
+and `reference documentation <https://gitlab.com/knurd42/regzbot/-/blob/main/docs/reference.md>`_
+which both cover more details than the above section.
+
+Quotes from Linus about regression
+----------------------------------
+
+Find below a few real life examples of how Linus Torvalds expects regressions to
+be handled:
+
+ * From `2017-10-26 (1/2)
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFwiiQYJ+YoLKCXjN_beDVfu38mg=Ggg5LFOcqHE8Qi7Zw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       If you break existing user space setups THAT IS A REGRESSION.
+
+       It's not ok to say "but we'll fix the user space setup".
+
+       Really. NOT OK.
+
+       [...]
+
+       The first rule is:
+
+        - we don't cause regressions
+
+       and the corollary is that when regressions *do* occur, we admit to
+       them and fix them, instead of blaming user space.
+
+       The fact that you have apparently been denying the regression now for
+       three weeks means that I will revert, and I will stop pulling apparmor
+       requests until the people involved understand how kernel development
+       is done.
+
+ * From `2017-10-26 (2/2)
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+55aFxW7NMAMvYhkvz1UPbUTUJewRt6Yb51QAx5RtrWOwjebg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       People should basically always feel like they can update their kernel
+       and simply not have to worry about it.
+
+       I refuse to introduce "you can only update the kernel if you also
+       update that other program" kind of limitations. If the kernel used to
+       work for you, the rule is that it continues to work for you.
+
+       There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between, and they
+       generally have some major and fundamental reasons for having happened,
+       that were basically entirely unavoidable, and people _tried_hard_ to
+       avoid them. Maybe we can't practically support the hardware any more
+       after it is decades old and nobody uses it with modern kernels any
+       more. Maybe there's a serious security issue with how we did things,
+       and people actually depended on that fundamentally broken model. Maybe
+       there was some fundamental other breakage that just _had_ to have a
+       flag day for very core and fundamental reasons.
+
+       And notice that this is very much about *breaking* peoples environments.
+
+       Behavioral changes happen, and maybe we don't even support some
+       feature any more. There's a number of fields in /proc/<pid>/stat that
+       are printed out as zeroes, simply because they don't even *exist* in
+       the kernel any more, or because showing them was a mistake (typically
+       an information leak). But the numbers got replaced by zeroes, so that
+       the code that used to parse the fields still works. The user might not
+       see everything they used to see, and so behavior is clearly different,
+       but things still _work_, even if they might no longer show sensitive
+       (or no longer relevant) information.
+
+       But if something actually breaks, then the change must get fixed or
+       reverted. And it gets fixed in the *kernel*. Not by saying "well, fix
+       your user space then". It was a kernel change that exposed the
+       problem, it needs to be the kernel that corrects for it, because we
+       have a "upgrade in place" model. We don't have a "upgrade with new
+       user space".
+
+       And I seriously will refuse to take code from people who do not
+       understand and honor this very simple rule.
+
+       This rule is also not going to change.
+
+       And yes, I realize that the kernel is "special" in this respect. I'm
+       proud of it.
+
+       I have seen, and can point to, lots of projects that go "We need to
+       break that use case in order to make progress" or "you relied on
+       undocumented behavior, it sucks to be you" or "there's a better way to
+       do what you want to do, and you have to change to that new better
+       way", and I simply don't think that's acceptable outside of very early
+       alpha releases that have experimental users that know what they signed
+       up for. The kernel hasn't been in that situation for the last two
+       decades.
+
+       We do API breakage _inside_ the kernel all the time. We will fix
+       internal problems by saying "you now need to do XYZ", but then it's
+       about internal kernel API's, and the people who do that then also
+       obviously have to fix up all the in-kernel users of that API. Nobody
+       can say "I now broke the API you used, and now _you_ need to fix it
+       up". Whoever broke something gets to fix it too.
+
+       And we simply do not break user space.
+
+ * From `2020-05-21
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiVi7mSrsMP=fLXQrXK_UimybW=ziLOwSzFTtoXUacWVQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       The rules about regressions have never been about any kind of
+       documented behavior, or where the code lives.
+
+       The rules about regressions are always about "breaks user workflow".
+
+       Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters.
+
+       No amount of "you shouldn't have used this" or "that behavior was
+       undefined, it's your own fault your app broke" or "that used to work
+       simply because of a kernel bug" is at all relevant.
+
+       Now, reality is never entirely black-and-white. So we've had things
+       like "serious security issue" etc that just forces us to make changes
+       that may break user space. But even then the rule is that we don't
+       really have other options that would allow things to continue.
+
+       And obviously, if users take years to even notice that something
+       broke, or if we have sane ways to work around the breakage that
+       doesn't make for too much trouble for users (ie "ok, there are a
+       handful of users, and they can use a kernel command line to work
+       around it" kind of things) we've also been a bit less strict.
+
+       But no, "that was documented to be broken" (whether it's because the
+       code was in staging or because the man-page said something else) is
+       irrelevant. If staging code is so useful that people end up using it,
+       that means that it's basically regular kernel code with a flag saying
+       "please clean this up".
+
+       The other side of the coin is that people who talk about "API
+       stability" are entirely wrong. API's don't matter either. You can make
+       any changes to an API you like - as long as nobody notices.
+
+       Again, the regression rule is not about documentation, not about
+       API's, and not about the phase of the moon.
+
+       It's entirely about "we caused problems for user space that used to work".
+
+ * From `2012-07-06 <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwnLJ+0sjx92EGREGTWOx84wwKaraSzpTNJwPVV8edw8g@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       > Now this got me wondering if Debian _unstable_ actually qualifies as a
+       > standard distro userspace.
+
+       Oh, if the kernel breaks some standard user space, that counts. Tons
+       of people run Debian unstable (and from my limited interactions with
+       it, for damn good reasons: -stable tends to run so old versions of
+       everything that you have to sometimes deal with cuneiform writing when
+       using it)
+
+ * From `2017-11-05
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzUvbGjD8nQ-+3oiMBx14c_6zOj2n7KLN3UsJ-qsd4Dcw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       And our regression rule has never been "behavior doesn't change".
+       That would mean that we could never make any changes at all.
+
+       For example, we do things like add new error handling etc all the
+       time, which we then sometimes even add tests for in our kselftest
+       directory.
+
+       So clearly behavior changes all the time and we don't consider that a
+       regression per se.
+
+       The rule for a regression for the kernel is that some real user
+       workflow breaks. Not some test. Not a "look, I used to be able to do
+       X, now I can't".
+
+ * From `2018-08-03
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFwWZX=CXmWDTkDGb36kf12XmTehmQjbiMPCqCRG2hi9kw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       YOU ARE MISSING THE #1 KERNEL RULE.
+
+       We do not regress, and we do not regress exactly because your are 100% wrong.
+
+       And the reason you state for your opinion is in fact exactly *WHY* you
+       are wrong.
+
+       Your "good reasons" are pure and utter garbage.
+
+       The whole point of "we do not regress" is so that people can upgrade
+       the kernel and never have to worry about it.
+
+       > Kernel had a bug which has been fixed
+
+       That is *ENTIRELY* immaterial.
+
+       Guys, whether something was buggy or not DOES NOT MATTER.
+
+       Why?
+
+       Bugs happen. That's a fact of life. Arguing that "we had to break
+       something because we were fixing a bug" is completely insane. We fix
+       tens of bugs every single day, thinking that "fixing a bug" means that
+       we can break something is simply NOT TRUE.
+
+       So bugs simply aren't even relevant to the discussion. They happen,
+       they get found, they get fixed, and it has nothing to do with "we
+       break users".
+
+       Because the only thing that matters IS THE USER.
+
+       How hard is that to understand?
+
+       Anybody who uses "but it was buggy" as an argument is entirely missing
+       the point. As far as the USER was concerned, it wasn't buggy - it
+       worked for him/her.
+
+       Maybe it worked *because* the user had taken the bug into account,
+       maybe it worked because the user didn't notice - again, it doesn't
+       matter. It worked for the user.
+
+       Breaking a user workflow for a "bug" is absolutely the WORST reason
+       for breakage you can imagine.
+
+       It's basically saying "I took something that worked, and I broke it,
+       but now it's better". Do you not see how f*cking insane that statement
+       is?
+
+       And without users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless
+       piece of code that you might as well throw away.
+
+       Seriously. This is *why* the #1 rule for kernel development is "we
+       don't break users". Because "I fixed a bug" is absolutely NOT AN
+       ARGUMENT if that bug fix broke a user setup. You actually introduced a
+       MUCH BIGGER bug by "fixing" something that the user clearly didn't
+       even care about.
+
+       And dammit, we upgrade the kernel ALL THE TIME without upgrading any
+       other programs at all. It is absolutely required, because flag-days
+       and dependencies are horribly bad.
+
+       And it is also required simply because I as a kernel developer do not
+       upgrade random other tools that I don't even care about as I develop
+       the kernel, and I want any of my users to feel safe doing the same
+       time.
+
+       So no. Your rule is COMPLETELY wrong. If you cannot upgrade a kernel
+       without upgrading some other random binary, then we have a problem.
+
+ * From `2021-06-05
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiUVqHN76YUwhkjZzwTdjMMJf_zN4+u7vEJjmEGh3recw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       THERE ARE NO VALID ARGUMENTS FOR REGRESSIONS.
+
+       Honestly, security people need to understand that "not working" is not
+       a success case of security. It's a failure case.
+
+       Yes, "not working" may be secure. But security in that case is *pointless*.
+
+ * From `2021-07-30
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=witY33b-vqqp=ApqyoFDpx9p+n4PwG9N-TvF8bq7-tsHw@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       But we have the policy that regressions aren't about documentation or
+       even sane behavior.
+
+       Regressions are about whether a user application broke in a noticeable way.
+
+ * From `2011-05-06 (1/3)
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTim9YvResB+PwRp7QTK-a5VNg2PvmQ@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       Binary compatibility is more important.
+
+       And if binaries don't use the interface to parse the format (or just
+       parse it wrongly - see the fairly recent example of adding uuid's to
+       /proc/self/mountinfo), then it's a regression.
+
+       And regressions get reverted, unless there are security issues or
+       similar that makes us go "Oh Gods, we really have to break things".
+
+       I don't understand why this simple logic is so hard for some kernel
+       developers to understand. Reality matters. Your personal wishes matter
+       NOT AT ALL.
+
+       If you made an interface that can be used without parsing the
+       interface description, then we're stuck with the interface. Theory
+       simply doesn't matter.
+
+       You could help fix the tools, and try to avoid the compatibility
+       issues that way. There aren't that many of them.
+
+ * From `2011-05-06 (2/3)
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTi=KVXjKR82sqsz4gwjr+E0vtqCmvA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       it's clearly NOT an internal tracepoint. By definition. It's being
+       used by powertop.
+
+ * From `2011-05-06 (3/3)
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/all/BANLkTinazaXRdGovYL7rRVp+j6HbJ7pzhg@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       We have programs that use that ABI and thus it's a regression if they break.
+
+ * From `2006-02-21
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Pine.LNX.4.64.0602211631310.30245@g5.osdl.org/>`_::
+
+       The fact is, if changing the kernel breaks user-space, it's a regression.
+       IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER IT'S IN /sbin/hotplug OR ANYTHING ELSE. If it
+       was installed by a distribution, it's user-space. If it got installed by
+       "vmlinux", it's the kernel.
+
+       The only piece of user-space code we ship with the kernel is the system
+       call trampoline etc that the kernel sets up. THOSE interfaces we can
+       really change, because it changes with the kernel.
+
+ * From `2019-09-15
+   <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiP4K8DRJWsCo=20hn_6054xBamGKF2kPgUzpB5aMaofA@mail.gmail.com/>`_::
+
+       One _particularly_ last-minute revert is the top-most commit (ignoring
+       the version change itself) done just before the release, and while
+       it's very annoying, it's perhaps also instructive.
+
+       What's instructive about it is that I reverted a commit that wasn't
+       actually buggy. In fact, it was doing exactly what it set out to do,
+       and did it very well. In fact it did it _so_ well that the much
+       improved IO patterns it caused then ended up revealing a user-visible
+       regression due to a real bug in a completely unrelated area.
+
+       The actual details of that regression are not the reason I point that
+       revert out as instructive, though. It's more that it's an instructive
+       example of what counts as a regression, and what the whole "no
+       regressions" kernel rule means. The reverted commit didn't change any
+       API's, and it didn't introduce any new bugs. But it ended up exposing
+       another problem, and as such caused a kernel upgrade to fail for a
+       user. So it got reverted.
+
+       The point here being that we revert based on user-reported _behavior_,
+       not based on some "it changes the ABI" or "it caused a bug" concept.
+       The problem was really pre-existing, and it just didn't happen to
+       trigger before. The better IO patterns introduced by the change just
+       happened to expose an old bug, and people had grown to depend on the
+       previously benign behavior of that old issue.
+
+       And never fear, we'll re-introduce the fix that improved on the IO
+       patterns once we've decided just how to handle the fact that we had a
+       bad interaction with an interface that people had then just happened
+       to rely on incidental behavior for before. It's just that we'll have
+       to hash through how to do that (there are no less than three different
+       patches by three different developers being discussed, and there might
+       be more coming...). In the meantime, I reverted the thing that exposed
+       the problem to users for this release, even if I hope it will be
+       re-introduced (perhaps even backported as a stable patch) once we have
+       consensus about the issue it exposed.
+
+       Take-away from the whole thing: it's not about whether you change the
+       kernel-userspace ABI, or fix a bug, or about whether the old code
+       "should never have worked in the first place". It's about whether
+       something breaks existing users' workflow.
+
+       Anyway, that was my little aside on the whole regression thing.  Since
+       it's that "first rule of kernel programming", I felt it is perhaps
+       worth just bringing it up every once in a while
+
+..
+   end-of-content
+..
+   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
+   this as source:
+   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
+..
+   Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
+   is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
+   (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
+   files which use a more restrictive license.
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index ea3e6c914384..2a39fbc036fe 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -10438,6 +10438,8 @@ KERNEL REGRESSIONS
 M:	Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
 L:	regressions@lists.linux.dev
 S:	Supported
+F:	Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
+F:	Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
 
 KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK
 M:	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v4 2/3] docs: regressions*rst: rules of thumb for handling regressions

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Add a section with a few rules of thumb about how
quickly developers should address regressions to
Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst; additionally,
add a short paragraph about this to the companion document
Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst as well.

The rules of thumb were written after studying the quotes from Linus
found in regressions-devs.rst and especially influenced by statements
like "Users are literally the _only_ thing that matters" and "without
users, your program is not a program, it's a pointless piece of code
that you might as well throw away". The author interpreted those in
perspective to how the various Linux kernel series are maintained
currently and what those practices might mean for users running into a
regression on a small or big kernel update.

That for example lead to the paragraph starting with "Aim to get fixes
for regressions mainlined within one week after identifying the culprit,
if the regression was introduced in a stable/longterm release or the
devel cycle for the latest mainline release". Some might see this as
pretty high bar, but on the other hand something like that is needed to
not leave users out in the cold for too long -- which can quickly happen
when updating to the latest stable series, as the previous one is
normally stamped "End of Life" about three or four weeks after a new
mainline release. This makes a lot of users switch during this
timeframe. Any of them thus risk running into regressions not promptly
fixed; even worse, once the previous stable series is EOLed for real,
users that face a regression might be left with only three options:

 (1) continue running an outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel
     version from an abandoned stable series

 (2) run the kernel with the regression

 (3) downgrade to an earlier longterm series still supported

This is better avoided, as (1) puts users and their data in danger, (2)
will only be possible if it's a minor regression that doesn't interfere
with booting or serious usage, and (3) might be regression itself or
impossible on the particular machine, as the users might require drivers
or features only introduced after the latest longterm series branched
of.

In the end this lead to the aforementioned "Aim to fix regression within
one week" part. It's also the reason for the "Try to resolve any
regressions introduced in the current development cycle before its
end.".

Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
---
Hi! A lot of developers are doing a good job in fixing regressions in a
reasonable time span, but I noticed it sometimes takes many weeks to get
even simple fixes for regressions merged. Most of the time this is due
to one of these factors:

 * it takes a long time to get the fix ready, as some developers
   apparently don't prioritize work on fixing regressions

 * fully developed fixes linger in git trees of maintainers for weeks,
   sometimes even without the fix being in linux-next

This afaics is especially a problem for regressions introduced in
mainline, but only found after a new versions was released and a new
stable kernel series derived from it. Sometimes fixes for these
regressions are even left lying around for weeks until the next merge
window, which contributes to a huge pile of fixes getting backported to
stable and longterm releases after a merge window ended.  Asking
developers to speed things up rarely helped, as people have different
opinions on how fast regression fixes need to be developed and merged
upstream.

That's why it would be a great help to my work as regression tracker if
we had some rough written down guidelines for handling regressions, as
proposed by the patch below. I'm well aware that the text sets a pretty
high bar. That's because I approached the problem primarily from the
point of a user, as can be seen by the patch description.

The text added by this patch likely will lead to some discussions,
that's why I submit it separately from the rest of the new documents on
regressions, which are found in patch 1/3; I also CCed Linus on this
patch and hope he states his opinion or even ACKs is. In the end I can
easily tone this down or write something totally different: that's
totally fine for me, I'm mainly interested in having some expectations
roughly documented to get everyone on the same page.

Ciao, Thorsten
---
 .../admin-guide/regressions-users.rst         | 12 +++
 Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst    | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
index d32f446e9651..78df16f113b0 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
@@ -214,6 +214,18 @@ your report on the radar of these people by CCing or forwarding each report to
 the regressions mailing list, ideally with a "regzbot command" in your mail to
 get it tracked.
 
+How quickly are regressions normally fixed?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Developers should fix any reported regression as quickly as possible, to provide
+affected users with a solution in a timely manner and prevent more users from
+running into the issue; nevertheless developers need to take enough time and
+care to ensure regression fixes do not cause additional damage.
+
+The answer thus depends on various factors like the impact of a regression, its
+age, or the Linux series in which it occurs. In the end though, most regressions
+should be fixed within two weeks.
+
 Is it a regression, if the issue can be avoided by updating some software?
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
diff --git a/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst b/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
index 7eb66304a694..d59aa2c38d1f 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
@@ -45,6 +45,10 @@ The important bits (aka "The TL;DR")
    mandated by Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and
    :ref:`Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst <development_posting>`.
 
+#. Try to fix regressions quickly once the culprit has been identified; fixes
+   for most regressions should be merged within two weeks, but some need to be
+   resolved within two or three days.
+
 
 All the details on Linux kernel regressions relevant for developers
 ===================================================================
@@ -117,6 +121,83 @@ or others might need to look into the fix months or years later; these links are
 also crucial for tools and scripts like regzbot, as it allows them to associate
 changes with reports that were mailed or submitted to bug trackers.
 
+Prioritize work on fixing regressions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You should fix any reported regression as quickly as possible, to provide
+affected users with a solution in a timely manner and prevent more users from
+running into the issue; nevertheless developers need to take enough time and
+care to ensure regression fixes do not cause additional damage.
+
+In the end though, developers should give their best to prevent users from
+running into situations where a regression leaves them only three options: "run
+a kernel with a regression that seriously impacts usage", "continue running an
+outdated and thus potentially insecure kernel version for more than two weeks
+after a regression's culprit was identified", and "downgrade to a still
+supported kernel series that lack required features".
+
+How to realize this depends a lot on the situation. Here are a few rules of
+thumb for developers, in order or importance:
+
+ * Prioritize work on handling regression reports and fixing regression over all
+   other Linux kernel work, unless the latter concerns acute security issues or
+   bugs causing data loss or damage.
+
+ * Always consider reverting the culprit commits and reapplying them later
+   together with necessary fixes, as this might be the least dangerous and
+   quickest way to fix a regression.
+
+ * Try to resolve any regressions introduced in the current development before
+   its end. If you fear a fix might be too risky to apply only days before a new
+   mainline release, let Linus decide: submit the fix separately to him as soon
+   as possible with the explanation of the situation. He then can make a call
+   and postpone the release if necessary, for example if multiple such changes
+   show up in his inbox.
+
+ * Address regressions in stable, longterm, or proper mainline releases with
+   more urgency than regressions in mainline pre-releases. That changes after
+   the release of the fifth pre-release, aka "-rc5": mainline then becomes as
+   important, to ensure all the improvements and fixes are ideally tested
+   together for at least one week before Linus releases a new mainline version.
+
+ * Fix regressions within two or three days, if they are critical for some
+   reason -- for example, if the issue is likely to affect many users of the
+   kernel series in question on all or certain architectures. Note, this
+   includes mainline, as issues like compile errors otherwise might prevent many
+   testers or continuous integration systems from testing the series.
+
+ * Aim to merge regression fixes into mainline within one week after the culprit
+   was identified, if the regression was introduced in a stable/longterm release
+   or the development cycle for the latest mainline release (say v5.14). If
+   possible, try to address the issue even quicker, if the previous stable
+   series (v5.13.y) will be abandoned soon or already was stamped "End-of-Life"
+   (EOL) -- this usually happens about three to four weeks after a new mainline
+   release.
+
+ * Try to fix all other regressions within two weeks after the culprit was
+   found. Two or three additional weeks are acceptable for performance
+   regressions and other issues which are annoying, but don't prevent anyone
+   from running Linux (unless it's an issue in the current development cycle,
+   as those should ideally be addressed before the release). A few weeks in
+   total are acceptable if a regression can only be fixed with a risky change
+   and at the same time is affecting only a few users; as much time is
+   also okay if the regression is already present in the second newest longterm
+   kernel series.
+
+Note: The aforementioned time frames for resolving regressions are meant to
+include getting the fix tested, reviewed, and merged into mainline, ideally with
+the fix being in linux-next for two days.
+
+Developers need to account for this.
+
+Subsystem maintainers are expected to assist in reaching those periods by doing
+timely reviews and quick handling of accepted patches. They thus might have to
+send git-pull requests earlier or more often than usual; depending on the fix,
+it might even be acceptable to skip testing in linux-next. Especially fixes for
+regressions in stable and longterm kernels need to be handled quickly, as fixes
+need to be merged in mainline before they can be backported to older series.
+
+
 More aspects regarding regressions developers should be aware of
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH v4 3/3] docs: reporting-issues.rst: link new document about regressions

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Make Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst point to the newly
created document about regressions
(Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst). This allows to
shorten a few explanations the new document describes better and in more
detail.

While at it move the copyright hint to the end of the file, as suggested
during review of the new documents about regressions.

Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
---
 .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst          | 60 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
index d7ac13f789cc..3122c5a2fb66 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
@@ -1,14 +1,5 @@
 .. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)
-..
-   If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only, 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
-..
-   Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
-   is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
-   (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
-   files which use a more restrictive license.
-
+.. See the bottom of this file for additional redistribution information.
 
 Reporting issues
 ++++++++++++++++
@@ -395,19 +386,13 @@ 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 something that worked with an older version of
-the Linux kernel does not work with a newer one or somehow works worse with it.
-It thus is a regression when a WiFi driver that did a fine job with Linux 5.7
-somehow misbehaves with 5.8 or doesn't work at all. It's also a regression if
-an application shows erratic behavior with a newer kernel, which might happen
-due to incompatible changes in the interface between the kernel and the
-userland (like procfs and sysfs). Significantly reduced performance or
-increased power consumption also qualify as regression. But keep in mind: the
-new kernel needs to be built with a configuration that is similar to the one
-from the old kernel (see below how to achieve that). That's because the kernel
-developers sometimes can not avoid incompatibilities when implementing new
-features; but to avoid regressions such features have to be enabled explicitly
-during build time configuration.
+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/regressions-users.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/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst' before proceeding, as it
@@ -1073,10 +1058,10 @@ When dealing with regressions make sure the issue you face is really caused by
 the kernel and not by something else, as outlined above already.
 
 In the whole process keep in mind: an issue only qualifies as regression if the
-older and the newer kernel got built with a similar configuration. The best way
-to archive this: copy the configuration file (``.config``) from the old working
-kernel freshly to each newer kernel version you try. Afterwards run ``make
-olddefconfig`` to adjust it for the needs of the new version.
+older and the newer kernel got built with a similar configuration. This can be
+achieved by using ``make olddefconfig``, as explained in more detail by
+Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst; that document also provides a
+good deal of other information about regressions you might want to be aware of.
 
 
 Write and send the report
@@ -1756,10 +1741,23 @@ art will lay some groundwork to improve the situation over time.
 
 
 ..
-   This text is maintained by Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>. If 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
+   end-of-content
+..
+   This document is maintained by Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>. If
+   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".
+..
+   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
+   this as source:
+   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
+..
+   Note: Only the content of this RST file as found in the Linux kernel sources
+   is available under CC-BY-4.0, as versions of this text that were processed
+   (for example by the kernel's build system) might contain content taken from
+   files which use a more restrictive license.
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] docs: add two documents about regression handling

[Jonathan Corbet]

OK, I'll try not to take so long to have a look at it this time.

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:

> Create two documents explaining various aspects around regression
> handling and tracking; one is aimed at users, the other targets
> developers.
>
> The texts among others describe the first rule of Linux kernel
> development and what it means in practice. They also explain what a
> regression actually is and how to report one properly.
>
> Both texts additionally provide a brief introduction to the bot the
> kernel's regression tracker uses to facilitate the work, but mention the
> use is optional.
>
> To sum things up, provide a few quotes from Linus in the document for
> developers to show how serious he takes regressions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst           |   1 +
>  .../admin-guide/regressions-users.rst         | 436 ++++++++++++
>  Documentation/process/index.rst               |   1 +
>  Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst    | 672 ++++++++++++++++++

I'll start with some *serious* bikesheddery...it's best if the names of
the files tell readers what's inside.  This isn't something I feel
really strongly about, but we could consider

	admin-guide/reporting-regressions.txt (or just regressions.txt)
        process/regression-policy.txt

>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   2 +
>  5 files changed, 1112 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst
>
[...]

> +Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while
> +CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the
> +issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.

Perhaps a separate concern, but might you want to set up an @kernel.org
alias for the regression tracker?  Trust me, you're not gonna want to
run it forever, and the ability to quickly redirect the mail may prove
to be a nice thing to have.  An email address with your domain sitting
in the docs will circulate for years after it gets changed.

> +
> +Additional details about regressions
> +------------------------------------
> +
> +
> +What is the goal of the "no regressions rule"?
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Users should feel safe when updating kernel versions and not have to worry
> +something might break. This is in the interest of the kernel developers to make
> +updating attractive: they don't want users to stay on stable or longterm Linux
> +series that are either abandoned or more than one and a half years old. That's
> +in everybody's interest, as `those series might have known bugs, security
> +issues, or other problematic aspects already fixed in later versions
> +<http://www.kroah.com/log/blog/2018/08/24/what-stable-kernel-should-i-use/>`_.
> +Additionally, the kernel developers want to make it simple and appealing for
> +users to test the latest pre-release or regular release. That's also in
> +everybody's interest, as it's a lot easier to track down and fix problems, if
> +they are reported shortly after being introduced.
> +
> +Is the "no regressions" rule really adhered in practice?
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +It's taken really serious, as can be seen by many mailing list posts from Linux

serious*ly*

Otherwise I can't find a lot to complain about at this point.  I'm not
really convinced that we need all those Quotations From Chairman Linus,
but I won't fight about it either :)

In general, though, unless objections show up, I don't see any real
reason to not apply this one.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] docs: regressions*rst: rules of thumb for handling regressions

[Jonathan Corbet]

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:

One thing that caught my eye this time around...

> + * Address regressions in stable, longterm, or proper mainline releases with
> +   more urgency than regressions in mainline pre-releases. That changes after
> +   the release of the fifth pre-release, aka "-rc5": mainline then becomes as
> +   important, to ensure all the improvements and fixes are ideally tested
> +   together for at least one week before Linus releases a new mainline version.

Is that really what we want to suggest?  I ask because (1) fixes for
stable releases need to show up in mainline first anyway, and (2) Greg
has often stated that the stable releases shouldn't be something that
most maintainers need to worry about.  So if the bug is in mainline,
that has to get fixed first, and if it's something special to a stable
release, well, then the stable folks should fix it :)

> + * Fix regressions within two or three days, if they are critical for some
> +   reason -- for example, if the issue is likely to affect many users of the
> +   kernel series in question on all or certain architectures. Note, this
> +   includes mainline, as issues like compile errors otherwise might prevent many
> +   testers or continuous integration systems from testing the series.
> +
> + * Aim to merge regression fixes into mainline within one week after the culprit
> +   was identified, if the regression was introduced in a stable/longterm release
> +   or the development cycle for the latest mainline release (say v5.14). If
> +   possible, try to address the issue even quicker, if the previous stable
> +   series (v5.13.y) will be abandoned soon or already was stamped "End-of-Life"
> +   (EOL) -- this usually happens about three to four weeks after a new mainline
> +   release.

How much do we really think developers should worry about nearly-dead
stable kernels?  We're about to tell users they shouldn't be running the
kernel anyway...

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] docs: reporting-issues.rst: link new document about regressions

[Jonathan Corbet]

Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:

> Make Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst point to the newly
> created document about regressions
> (Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst). This allows to
> shorten a few explanations the new document describes better and in more
> detail.
>
> While at it move the copyright hint to the end of the file, as suggested
> during review of the new documents about regressions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
> ---
>  .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst          | 60 +++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

[...]

> +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/regressions-users.rst' explains this in more detail.

Some of those quotes around file names are still sneaking in.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] docs: reporting-issues.rst: link new document about regressions

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 02.02.22 00:23, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> 
>> Make Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst point to the newly
>> created document about regressions
>> (Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst). This allows to
>> shorten a few explanations the new document describes better and in more
>> detail.
>>
>> While at it move the copyright hint to the end of the file, as suggested
>> during review of the new documents about regressions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
>> ---
>>  .../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst          | 60 +++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +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/regressions-users.rst' explains this in more detail.
> 
> Some of those quotes around file names are still sneaking in.

I did that on purpose here, as the file right now uses single quotes for
doc references almost everywhere and I thought I better stick to its
style -- especially as one such a quoted references is pretty close by
in this case, so it would look odd to quote one but not the other:

```
[...] compiled using a similar configuration. The document
 'Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.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/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst' before proceeding, as it
 [...]
```

Stupid me just forgot to use single quotes for the second link to
Documentation/admin-guide/regressions-users.rst. Will fix this up :-/

That being said: in a mail on Monday I already raised the issue like
this (slightly reworded):

----
I noticed I quoted internal references in reporting-issues.rst quite
often. IMHO it improves readability sometimes (it depends a lot on the
title of the target document), as can be seen in this example.

The source text looks like this:

```
If your kernel is tainted, study
'Documentation/admin-guide/tainted-kernels.rst' to find out why.
[...]
To find the change there is a process called 'bisection' which the
document 'Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst' describes in detail.
```

After processing to HTML the text looks like this:

```
If your kernel is tainted, study ‘Tainted kernels‘ to find out why.
[...]
To find the change there is a process called ‘bisection’ which the
document ‘Bisecting a bug’ describes in detail.
```

Sure, "Tainted kernels" and "Bisecting a bug" are links and hence
displayed differently by the browser, but I think the quotes help. But YMMV.

I sooner or later hope to improve and fix a few things in
reporting-issues.rst anyway. Let me know if I should take the
opportunity to remove the single quotes then.
----

So I'd say: I add two more quoted doc links to the file now and fix this
up later, if you still think removing the quotes is a good idea. Or do
you want me to remove the single quotes now in that patch (or a separate
one?)? It's not a big deal, there are only about 10 docs references.

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] docs: regressions*rst: rules of thumb for handling regressions

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 02.02.22 00:21, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> 
> One thing that caught my eye this time around...
> 
>> + * Address regressions in stable, longterm, or proper mainline releases with
>> +   more urgency than regressions in mainline pre-releases. That changes after
>> +   the release of the fifth pre-release, aka "-rc5": mainline then becomes as
>> +   important, to ensure all the improvements and fixes are ideally tested
>> +   together for at least one week before Linus releases a new mainline version.
> 
> Is that really what we want to suggest?  I ask because (1) fixes for
> stable releases need to show up in mainline first anyway, and (2) Greg
> has often stated that the stable releases shouldn't be something that
> most maintainers need to worry about.  So if the bug is in mainline,
> that has to get fixed first, and if it's something special to a stable
> release, well, then the stable folks should fix it :)

Hmmm. Well, afaics in the end many (most?) of the regressions that
happen in these series are present in mainline as well: either they
where introduced in an earlier devel cycle or came with a backport to
stable/longterm and thus are present in mainline as well (unless the
backport was incomplete or broken). So I'd say it's up to the regular
developers and not the stable team to fix many (most?) of them.

That being said: yes, I think you have a point. This could be fixed with
some small adjustments to the wording above, but...

>> + * Fix regressions within two or three days, if they are critical for some
>> +   reason -- for example, if the issue is likely to affect many users of the
>> +   kernel series in question on all or certain architectures. Note, this
>> +   includes mainline, as issues like compile errors otherwise might prevent many
>> +   testers or continuous integration systems from testing the series.

...the same aspect is relevant for other points like this one, too. And
there it's not as easily solved. So maybe this is better addressed with
a separate point early in the list:

```
* Developers are expected to handle regressions in all kernel series,
but are free to leave them to the stable team, if the regression
probably at no point in time occurred with mainline.
```

Regressions for example caused by incomplete or broken backports thus
would be something developers could leave to Greg (and I expect he won't
mind).

>> + * Aim to merge regression fixes into mainline within one week after the culprit
>> +   was identified, if the regression was introduced in a stable/longterm release
>> +   or the development cycle for the latest mainline release (say v5.14). If
>> +   possible, try to address the issue even quicker, if the previous stable
>> +   series (v5.13.y) will be abandoned soon or already was stamped "End-of-Life"
>> +   (EOL) -- this usually happens about three to four weeks after a new mainline
>> +   release.
> 
> How much do we really think developers should worry about nearly-dead
> stable kernels?  We're about to tell users they shouldn't be running the
> kernel anyway...

I'd expect we handle near EOL stable release round about normally until
they become EOL. But anyway, I had something different in mind when I
wrote the above and I get the feeling my text didn't express it well and
got you on the wrong track. :-/

My intention was: I want to prevent users getting stuck on EOLed stable
series (say 5.13.y) when a regression makes it hard or impossible for
the user to run the directly succeeding stable series (5.14.y).

I think this expresses it better:

```
* Aim to merge regression fixes into mainline within one week after the
culprit was identified, if the regression was introduced in either:

  * the development cycle of the latest proper mainline release

  * a recent release in a stable/longterm series

  Try to address regressions in the latest stable series even quicker,
if the previous series will be abandoned soon or already was stamped
"End-of-Life" (EOL) -- this usually happens about three to four weeks
after a new mainline release.

  Remember to mark the fix for backporting by using both the ``Fixes:``
tag and ``Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org``.
```

How does that sound?

Thx for the feedback, it's good that these things turned up.

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] docs: add two documents about regression handling

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 02.02.22 00:13, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> OK, I'll try not to take so long to have a look at it this time.
> 
> Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info> writes:
> 
>> Create two documents explaining various aspects around regression
>> handling and tracking; one is aimed at users, the other targets
>> developers.
>>
>> The texts among others describe the first rule of Linux kernel
>> development and what it means in practice. They also explain what a
>> regression actually is and how to report one properly.
>>
>> Both texts additionally provide a brief introduction to the bot the
>> kernel's regression tracker uses to facilitate the work, but mention the
>> use is optional.
>>
>> To sum things up, provide a few quotes from Linus in the document for
>> developers to show how serious he takes regressions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst           |   1 +
>>  .../admin-guide/regressions-users.rst         | 436 ++++++++++++
>>  Documentation/process/index.rst               |   1 +
>>  Documentation/process/regressions-devs.rst    | 672 ++++++++++++++++++
> 
> I'll start with some *serious* bikesheddery...it's best if the names of
> the files tell readers what's inside.  This isn't something I feel
> really strongly about, but we could consider

I wasn't totally happy with the file names myself, so it's good that you
bring it up.

> 	admin-guide/reporting-regressions.txt (or just regressions.txt)
>         process/regression-policy.txt

I like "reporting-regressions.txt", but I wonder if using the word
"policy" is a good idea. I tried to avoid it (and similar words, like
guidelines), as they might do more harm then good. So how about:

 	admin-guide/reporting-regressions.rst
        process/regressions.rst

> [...] 
>> +Send a mail to the regressions mailing list (regressions@lists.linux.dev) while
>> +CCing the Linux kernel's regression tracker (regressions@leemhuis.info); if the
>> +issue might better be dealt with in private, feel free to omit the list.
> 
> Perhaps a separate concern, but might you want to set up an @kernel.org
> alias for the regression tracker?  Trust me, you're not gonna want to
> run it forever, and the ability to quickly redirect the mail may prove
> to be a nice thing to have.  An email address with your domain sitting
> in the docs will circulate for years after it gets changed.

Yeah, it's on my mental to do list for a few weeks already, but never
set down to actually get this rolling. You are right, I'll ask for an alias.

>> +Is the "no regressions" rule really adhered in practice?
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> +
>> +It's taken really serious, as can be seen by many mailing list posts from Linux
> 
> serious*ly*

Fixed.

> Otherwise I can't find a lot to complain about at this point.  I'm not
> really convinced that we need all those Quotations From Chairman Linus,
> but I won't fight about it either :)

I'll take a look again and consider kicking a few.

> In general, though, unless objections show up, I don't see any real
> reason to not apply this one.

Great, many thx!

Ciao, Thorsten