diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/development-process/2.Process.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/development-process/2.Process.rst | 497 |
1 files changed, 497 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/2.Process.rst b/Documentation/development-process/2.Process.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..ce5561bb3f8e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/development-process/2.Process.rst @@ -0,0 +1,497 @@ +.. _development_process: + +How the development process works +================================= + +Linux kernel development in the early 1990's was a pretty loose affair, +with relatively small numbers of users and developers involved. With a +user base in the millions and with some 2,000 developers involved over the +course of one year, the kernel has since had to evolve a number of +processes to keep development happening smoothly. A solid understanding of +how the process works is required in order to be an effective part of it. + +The big picture +--------------- + +The kernel developers use a loosely time-based release process, with a new +major kernel release happening every two or three months. The recent +release history looks like this: + + ====== ================= + 2.6.38 March 14, 2011 + 2.6.37 January 4, 2011 + 2.6.36 October 20, 2010 + 2.6.35 August 1, 2010 + 2.6.34 May 15, 2010 + 2.6.33 February 24, 2010 + ====== ================= + +Every 2.6.x release is a major kernel release with new features, internal +API changes, and more. A typical 2.6 release can contain nearly 10,000 +changesets with changes to several hundred thousand lines of code. 2.6 is +thus the leading edge of Linux kernel development; the kernel uses a +rolling development model which is continually integrating major changes. + +A relatively straightforward discipline is followed with regard to the +merging of patches for each release. At the beginning of each development +cycle, the "merge window" is said to be open. At that time, code which is +deemed to be sufficiently stable (and which is accepted by the development +community) is merged into the mainline kernel. The bulk of changes for a +new development cycle (and all of the major changes) will be merged during +this time, at a rate approaching 1,000 changes ("patches," or "changesets") +per day. + +(As an aside, it is worth noting that the changes integrated during the +merge window do not come out of thin air; they have been collected, tested, +and staged ahead of time. How that process works will be described in +detail later on). + +The merge window lasts for approximately two weeks. At the end of this +time, Linus Torvalds will declare that the window is closed and release the +first of the "rc" kernels. For the kernel which is destined to be 2.6.40, +for example, the release which happens at the end of the merge window will +be called 2.6.40-rc1. The -rc1 release is the signal that the time to +merge new features has passed, and that the time to stabilize the next +kernel has begun. + +Over the next six to ten weeks, only patches which fix problems should be +submitted to the mainline. On occasion a more significant change will be +allowed, but such occasions are rare; developers who try to merge new +features outside of the merge window tend to get an unfriendly reception. +As a general rule, if you miss the merge window for a given feature, the +best thing to do is to wait for the next development cycle. (An occasional +exception is made for drivers for previously-unsupported hardware; if they +touch no in-tree code, they cannot cause regressions and should be safe to +add at any time). + +As fixes make their way into the mainline, the patch rate will slow over +time. Linus releases new -rc kernels about once a week; a normal series +will get up to somewhere between -rc6 and -rc9 before the kernel is +considered to be sufficiently stable and the final 2.6.x release is made. +At that point the whole process starts over again. + +As an example, here is how the 2.6.38 development cycle went (all dates in +2011): + + ============== =============================== + January 4 2.6.37 stable release + January 18 2.6.38-rc1, merge window closes + January 21 2.6.38-rc2 + February 1 2.6.38-rc3 + February 7 2.6.38-rc4 + February 15 2.6.38-rc5 + February 21 2.6.38-rc6 + March 1 2.6.38-rc7 + March 7 2.6.38-rc8 + March 14 2.6.38 stable release + ============== =============================== + +How do the developers decide when to close the development cycle and create +the stable release? The most significant metric used is the list of +regressions from previous releases. No bugs are welcome, but those which +break systems which worked in the past are considered to be especially +serious. For this reason, patches which cause regressions are looked upon +unfavorably and are quite likely to be reverted during the stabilization +period. + +The developers' goal is to fix all known regressions before the stable +release is made. In the real world, this kind of perfection is hard to +achieve; there are just too many variables in a project of this size. +There comes a point where delaying the final release just makes the problem +worse; the pile of changes waiting for the next merge window will grow +larger, creating even more regressions the next time around. So most 2.6.x +kernels go out with a handful of known regressions though, hopefully, none +of them are serious. + +Once a stable release is made, its ongoing maintenance is passed off to the +"stable team," currently consisting of Greg Kroah-Hartman. The stable team +will release occasional updates to the stable release using the 2.6.x.y +numbering scheme. To be considered for an update release, a patch must (1) +fix a significant bug, and (2) already be merged into the mainline for the +next development kernel. Kernels will typically receive stable updates for +a little more than one development cycle past their initial release. So, +for example, the 2.6.36 kernel's history looked like: + + ============== =============================== + October 10 2.6.36 stable release + November 22 2.6.36.1 + December 9 2.6.36.2 + January 7 2.6.36.3 + February 17 2.6.36.4 + ============== =============================== + +2.6.36.4 was the final stable update for the 2.6.36 release. + +Some kernels are designated "long term" kernels; they will receive support +for a longer period. As of this writing, the current long term kernels +and their maintainers are: + + ====== ====================== =========================== + 2.6.27 Willy Tarreau (Deep-frozen stable kernel) + 2.6.32 Greg Kroah-Hartman + 2.6.35 Andi Kleen (Embedded flag kernel) + ====== ====================== =========================== + +The selection of a kernel for long-term support is purely a matter of a +maintainer having the need and the time to maintain that release. There +are no known plans for long-term support for any specific upcoming +release. + + +The lifecycle of a patch +------------------------ + +Patches do not go directly from the developer's keyboard into the mainline +kernel. There is, instead, a somewhat involved (if somewhat informal) +process designed to ensure that each patch is reviewed for quality and that +each patch implements a change which is desirable to have in the mainline. +This process can happen quickly for minor fixes, or, in the case of large +and controversial changes, go on for years. Much developer frustration +comes from a lack of understanding of this process or from attempts to +circumvent it. + +In the hopes of reducing that frustration, this document will describe how +a patch gets into the kernel. What follows below is an introduction which +describes the process in a somewhat idealized way. A much more detailed +treatment will come in later sections. + +The stages that a patch goes through are, generally: + + - Design. This is where the real requirements for the patch - and the way + those requirements will be met - are laid out. Design work is often + done without involving the community, but it is better to do this work + in the open if at all possible; it can save a lot of time redesigning + things later. + + - Early review. Patches are posted to the relevant mailing list, and + developers on that list reply with any comments they may have. This + process should turn up any major problems with a patch if all goes + well. + + - Wider review. When the patch is getting close to ready for mainline + inclusion, it should be accepted by a relevant subsystem maintainer - + though this acceptance is not a guarantee that the patch will make it + all the way to the mainline. The patch will show up in the maintainer's + subsystem tree and into the -next trees (described below). When the + process works, this step leads to more extensive review of the patch and + the discovery of any problems resulting from the integration of this + patch with work being done by others. + +- Please note that most maintainers also have day jobs, so merging + your patch may not be their highest priority. If your patch is + getting feedback about changes that are needed, you should either + make those changes or justify why they should not be made. If your + patch has no review complaints but is not being merged by its + appropriate subsystem or driver maintainer, you should be persistent + in updating the patch to the current kernel so that it applies cleanly + and keep sending it for review and merging. + + - Merging into the mainline. Eventually, a successful patch will be + merged into the mainline repository managed by Linus Torvalds. More + comments and/or problems may surface at this time; it is important that + the developer be responsive to these and fix any issues which arise. + + - Stable release. The number of users potentially affected by the patch + is now large, so, once again, new problems may arise. + + - Long-term maintenance. While it is certainly possible for a developer + to forget about code after merging it, that sort of behavior tends to + leave a poor impression in the development community. Merging code + eliminates some of the maintenance burden, in that others will fix + problems caused by API changes. But the original developer should + continue to take responsibility for the code if it is to remain useful + in the longer term. + +One of the largest mistakes made by kernel developers (or their employers) +is to try to cut the process down to a single "merging into the mainline" +step. This approach invariably leads to frustration for everybody +involved. + +How patches get into the Kernel +------------------------------- + +There is exactly one person who can merge patches into the mainline kernel +repository: Linus Torvalds. But, of the over 9,500 patches which went +into the 2.6.38 kernel, only 112 (around 1.3%) were directly chosen by Linus +himself. The kernel project has long since grown to a size where no single +developer could possibly inspect and select every patch unassisted. The +way the kernel developers have addressed this growth is through the use of +a lieutenant system built around a chain of trust. + +The kernel code base is logically broken down into a set of subsystems: +networking, specific architecture support, memory management, video +devices, etc. Most subsystems have a designated maintainer, a developer +who has overall responsibility for the code within that subsystem. These +subsystem maintainers are the gatekeepers (in a loose way) for the portion +of the kernel they manage; they are the ones who will (usually) accept a +patch for inclusion into the mainline kernel. + +Subsystem maintainers each manage their own version of the kernel source +tree, usually (but certainly not always) using the git source management +tool. Tools like git (and related tools like quilt or mercurial) allow +maintainers to track a list of patches, including authorship information +and other metadata. At any given time, the maintainer can identify which +patches in his or her repository are not found in the mainline. + +When the merge window opens, top-level maintainers will ask Linus to "pull" +the patches they have selected for merging from their repositories. If +Linus agrees, the stream of patches will flow up into his repository, +becoming part of the mainline kernel. The amount of attention that Linus +pays to specific patches received in a pull operation varies. It is clear +that, sometimes, he looks quite closely. But, as a general rule, Linus +trusts the subsystem maintainers to not send bad patches upstream. + +Subsystem maintainers, in turn, can pull patches from other maintainers. +For example, the networking tree is built from patches which accumulated +first in trees dedicated to network device drivers, wireless networking, +etc. This chain of repositories can be arbitrarily long, though it rarely +exceeds two or three links. Since each maintainer in the chain trusts +those managing lower-level trees, this process is known as the "chain of +trust." + +Clearly, in a system like this, getting patches into the kernel depends on +finding the right maintainer. Sending patches directly to Linus is not +normally the right way to go. + + +Next trees +---------- + +The chain of subsystem trees guides the flow of patches into the kernel, +but it also raises an interesting question: what if somebody wants to look +at all of the patches which are being prepared for the next merge window? +Developers will be interested in what other changes are pending to see +whether there are any conflicts to worry about; a patch which changes a +core kernel function prototype, for example, will conflict with any other +patches which use the older form of that function. Reviewers and testers +want access to the changes in their integrated form before all of those +changes land in the mainline kernel. One could pull changes from all of +the interesting subsystem trees, but that would be a big and error-prone +job. + +The answer comes in the form of -next trees, where subsystem trees are +collected for testing and review. The older of these trees, maintained by +Andrew Morton, is called "-mm" (for memory management, which is how it got +started). The -mm tree integrates patches from a long list of subsystem +trees; it also has some patches aimed at helping with debugging. + +Beyond that, -mm contains a significant collection of patches which have +been selected by Andrew directly. These patches may have been posted on a +mailing list, or they may apply to a part of the kernel for which there is +no designated subsystem tree. As a result, -mm operates as a sort of +subsystem tree of last resort; if there is no other obvious path for a +patch into the mainline, it is likely to end up in -mm. Miscellaneous +patches which accumulate in -mm will eventually either be forwarded on to +an appropriate subsystem tree or be sent directly to Linus. In a typical +development cycle, approximately 5-10% of the patches going into the +mainline get there via -mm. + +The current -mm patch is available in the "mmotm" (-mm of the moment) +directory at: + + http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/ + +Use of the MMOTM tree is likely to be a frustrating experience, though; +there is a definite chance that it will not even compile. + +The primary tree for next-cycle patch merging is linux-next, maintained by +Stephen Rothwell. The linux-next tree is, by design, a snapshot of what +the mainline is expected to look like after the next merge window closes. +Linux-next trees are announced on the linux-kernel and linux-next mailing +lists when they are assembled; they can be downloaded from: + + http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/next/ + +Linux-next has become an integral part of the kernel development process; +all patches merged during a given merge window should really have found +their way into linux-next some time before the merge window opens. + + +Staging trees +------------- + +The kernel source tree contains the drivers/staging/ directory, where +many sub-directories for drivers or filesystems that are on their way to +being added to the kernel tree live. They remain in drivers/staging while +they still need more work; once complete, they can be moved into the +kernel proper. This is a way to keep track of drivers that aren't +up to Linux kernel coding or quality standards, but people may want to use +them and track development. + +Greg Kroah-Hartman currently maintains the staging tree. Drivers that +still need work are sent to him, with each driver having its own +subdirectory in drivers/staging/. Along with the driver source files, a +TODO file should be present in the directory as well. The TODO file lists +the pending work that the driver needs for acceptance into the kernel +proper, as well as a list of people that should be Cc'd for any patches to +the driver. Current rules require that drivers contributed to staging +must, at a minimum, compile properly. + +Staging can be a relatively easy way to get new drivers into the mainline +where, with luck, they will come to the attention of other developers and +improve quickly. Entry into staging is not the end of the story, though; +code in staging which is not seeing regular progress will eventually be +removed. Distributors also tend to be relatively reluctant to enable +staging drivers. So staging is, at best, a stop on the way toward becoming +a proper mainline driver. + + +Tools +----- + +As can be seen from the above text, the kernel development process depends +heavily on the ability to herd collections of patches in various +directions. The whole thing would not work anywhere near as well as it +does without suitably powerful tools. Tutorials on how to use these tools +are well beyond the scope of this document, but there is space for a few +pointers. + +By far the dominant source code management system used by the kernel +community is git. Git is one of a number of distributed version control +systems being developed in the free software community. It is well tuned +for kernel development, in that it performs quite well when dealing with +large repositories and large numbers of patches. It also has a reputation +for being difficult to learn and use, though it has gotten better over +time. Some sort of familiarity with git is almost a requirement for kernel +developers; even if they do not use it for their own work, they'll need git +to keep up with what other developers (and the mainline) are doing. + +Git is now packaged by almost all Linux distributions. There is a home +page at: + + http://git-scm.com/ + +That page has pointers to documentation and tutorials. + +Among the kernel developers who do not use git, the most popular choice is +almost certainly Mercurial: + + http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/ + +Mercurial shares many features with git, but it provides an interface which +many find easier to use. + +The other tool worth knowing about is Quilt: + + http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt/ + +Quilt is a patch management system, rather than a source code management +system. It does not track history over time; it is, instead, oriented +toward tracking a specific set of changes against an evolving code base. +Some major subsystem maintainers use quilt to manage patches intended to go +upstream. For the management of certain kinds of trees (-mm, for example), +quilt is the best tool for the job. + + +Mailing lists +------------- + +A great deal of Linux kernel development work is done by way of mailing +lists. It is hard to be a fully-functioning member of the community +without joining at least one list somewhere. But Linux mailing lists also +represent a potential hazard to developers, who risk getting buried under a +load of electronic mail, running afoul of the conventions used on the Linux +lists, or both. + +Most kernel mailing lists are run on vger.kernel.org; the master list can +be found at: + + http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html + +There are lists hosted elsewhere, though; a number of them are at +lists.redhat.com. + +The core mailing list for kernel development is, of course, linux-kernel. +This list is an intimidating place to be; volume can reach 500 messages per +day, the amount of noise is high, the conversation can be severely +technical, and participants are not always concerned with showing a high +degree of politeness. But there is no other place where the kernel +development community comes together as a whole; developers who avoid this +list will miss important information. + +There are a few hints which can help with linux-kernel survival: + +- Have the list delivered to a separate folder, rather than your main + mailbox. One must be able to ignore the stream for sustained periods of + time. + +- Do not try to follow every conversation - nobody else does. It is + important to filter on both the topic of interest (though note that + long-running conversations can drift away from the original subject + without changing the email subject line) and the people who are + participating. + +- Do not feed the trolls. If somebody is trying to stir up an angry + response, ignore them. + +- When responding to linux-kernel email (or that on other lists) preserve + the Cc: header for all involved. In the absence of a strong reason (such + as an explicit request), you should never remove recipients. Always make + sure that the person you are responding to is in the Cc: list. This + convention also makes it unnecessary to explicitly ask to be copied on + replies to your postings. + +- Search the list archives (and the net as a whole) before asking + questions. Some developers can get impatient with people who clearly + have not done their homework. + +- Avoid top-posting (the practice of putting your answer above the quoted + text you are responding to). It makes your response harder to read and + makes a poor impression. + +- Ask on the correct mailing list. Linux-kernel may be the general meeting + point, but it is not the best place to find developers from all + subsystems. + +The last point - finding the correct mailing list - is a common place for +beginning developers to go wrong. Somebody who asks a networking-related +question on linux-kernel will almost certainly receive a polite suggestion +to ask on the netdev list instead, as that is the list frequented by most +networking developers. Other lists exist for the SCSI, video4linux, IDE, +filesystem, etc. subsystems. The best place to look for mailing lists is +in the MAINTAINERS file packaged with the kernel source. + + +Getting started with Kernel development +--------------------------------------- + +Questions about how to get started with the kernel development process are +common - from both individuals and companies. Equally common are missteps +which make the beginning of the relationship harder than it has to be. + +Companies often look to hire well-known developers to get a development +group started. This can, in fact, be an effective technique. But it also +tends to be expensive and does not do much to grow the pool of experienced +kernel developers. It is possible to bring in-house developers up to speed +on Linux kernel development, given the investment of a bit of time. Taking +this time can endow an employer with a group of developers who understand +the kernel and the company both, and who can help to train others as well. +Over the medium term, this is often the more profitable approach. + +Individual developers are often, understandably, at a loss for a place to +start. Beginning with a large project can be intimidating; one often wants +to test the waters with something smaller first. This is the point where +some developers jump into the creation of patches fixing spelling errors or +minor coding style issues. Unfortunately, such patches create a level of +noise which is distracting for the development community as a whole, so, +increasingly, they are looked down upon. New developers wishing to +introduce themselves to the community will not get the sort of reception +they wish for by these means. + +Andrew Morton gives this advice for aspiring kernel developers + +:: + + The #1 project for all kernel beginners should surely be "make sure + that the kernel runs perfectly at all times on all machines which + you can lay your hands on". Usually the way to do this is to work + with others on getting things fixed up (this can require + persistence!) but that's fine - it's a part of kernel development. + +(http://lwn.net/Articles/283982/). + +In the absence of obvious problems to fix, developers are advised to look +at the current lists of regressions and open bugs in general. There is +never any shortage of issues in need of fixing; by addressing these issues, +developers will gain experience with the process while, at the same time, +building respect with the rest of the development community. |