mirror of
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
synced 2024-08-23 17:30:02 +00:00
![Jonathan Corbet](/assets/img/avatar_default.png)
Here's a set of changes updating Documentation/development-process. I have update kernel releases and relevant statistics, added information for a couple of tools, zapped some trailing white space, and generally tried to make it more closely match the current state of affairs. [Typo fixes from Joe Perches and Nicolas Kaiser incorporated] Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Acked-by: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
482 lines
23 KiB
Text
482 lines
23 KiB
Text
2: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3: HOW PATCHES GET INTO THE KERNEL
|
|
|
|
There is exactly one person who can merge patches into the mainline kernel
|
|
repository: Linus Torvalds. But, of the over 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.4: 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://userweb.kernel.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/people/sfr/linux-next/
|
|
|
|
Some information about linux-next has been gathered at:
|
|
|
|
http://linux.f-seidel.de/linux-next/pmwiki/
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.4.1: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.5: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.7: 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.
|