kernel/linux.git/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst, branch v7.1-rc5

docs: maintainer-netdev: fix typo in "targeting"

2026-04-23T03:16:58+00:00

Fix spelling mistake "targgeting" -> "targeting" in maintainer-netdev.rst No functional change. Signed-off-by: Ariful Islam Shoikot Reviewed-by: Breno Leitao Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260420114554.1026-1-islamarifulshoikat@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: improve wording of reviewer guidance

2026-04-09T02:03:00+00:00

Reword the reviewer guidance based on behavior we see on the list. Steer folks: - towards sending tags - away from process issues. Reviewed-by: Joe Damato Reviewed-by: Nicolai Buchwitz Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260406175334.3153451-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: refine netdevsim testing guidance

2026-03-06T21:18:04+00:00

The library to create tests for both NIC HW and netdevsim has existed for almost a year. netdevsim-only tests we get increasingly feel like a waste, we should try to write tests that work both on netdevsim and real HW. Refine the guidance accordingly. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260304151647.2770466-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: refine 15-patch limit

2026-01-17T23:59:25+00:00

The 15 patch limit is intended by the maintainers to cover all outstanding patches on the mailing list on a per-tree basis. Not just those in a single patchset. Document this practice accordingly. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260115-15-minutes-of-fame-v2-1-70cbf0883aff@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: refine the clean-up patch examples

2025-08-19T00:39:32+00:00

We discourage sending trivial patches to clean up checkpatch warnings. There are other tools which lead to patches of similarly low value like some coccicheck warnings. The warnings are useful for new code but fixing them in the existing code base is a waste of review time. Broaden the example given in the doc a little bit. Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250815165242.124240-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: correct the heading level for co-posting selftests

2025-06-27T22:31:24+00:00

"Co-posting selftests" belongs in the "netdev patch review" section, same as "co-posting changes to user space components". It was erroneously added as its own section. Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250626182055.4161905-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: add a note on selftest posting

2025-03-11T12:31:26+00:00

We haven't had much discussion on the list about this, but a handful of people have been confused about rules on posting selftests for fixes, lately. I tend to post fixes with their respective selftests in the same series. There are tradeoffs around size of the net tree and conflicts but so far it hasn't been a major issue. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski Acked-by: Cong Wang Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250306180533.1864075-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni

docs: netdev: document requirements for Supported status

2025-01-14T22:28:37+00:00

As announced back in April, require running upstream tests to maintain Supported status for NIC drivers: https://lore.kernel.org/20240425114200.3effe773@kernel.org Multiple vendors have been "working on it" for months. Let's make it official. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250111024359.3678956-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup patches

2024-10-10T15:35:20+00:00

The purpose of this section is to document what is the current practice regarding clean-up patches which address checkpatch warnings and similar problems. I feel there is a value in having this documented so others can easily refer to it. Clearly this topic is subjective. And to some extent the current practice discourages a wider range of patches than is described here. But I feel it is best to start somewhere, with the most well established part of the current practice. Signed-off-by: Simon Horman Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20241009-doc-mc-clean-v2-1-e637b665fa81@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski

docs: netdev: document guidance on cleanup.h

2024-09-05T09:00:35+00:00

Document what was discussed multiple times on list and various virtual / in-person conversations. guard() being okay in functions <= 20 LoC is a bit of my own invention. If the function is trivial it should be fine, but feel free to disagree :) We'll obviously revisit this guidance as time passes and we and other subsystems get more experience. Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet Reviewed-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20240830171443.3532077-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni