Adding to linux-next?

Hello Stephen, linux-next'ers,

I am looking for some guidance on policy/procedure governing inclusion of a tree to linux-next. For instance: Do I have to be arbitrarily invited (e.g. by some committee on LKML), or do I explicitly request consideration? I tried to Google around for answers, and also found the linux-next wiki, but I was not getting any clear answers.

I have these guest drivers to support IO on top of the AlacrityVM hypervisor:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/3/278

The comments have since died down. I realize this can mean anything from "no objection" to "no interest" ;), but I assume the former unless someone pipes up.

I believe I addressed the review comments and received an Ack from the one maintainer of the tree that overlaps with the work (netdev/davem), here:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/3/505

Since the rest of the work doesn't really fall into any existing subsystem, and David conceded that the netdev overlap portion should carry elsewhere, I offer to fill this role myself from within the AlacrityVM tree itself.

As such, I have taken the driver series and created a new branch here:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ghaskins/alacrityvm/linux-2.6.git
linux-next

Unlike the original posting, I have excluded the final ethernet patch since I posted a v3 today (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/2/239) that I would like to have David re-Ack before including.

Once the driver has been suitably approved by David, and if he still feels its ok to carry in a tree other than netdev, I will re-add it to the linux-next branch.

Because I am not really sure of the policies for linux-next, let me state my intentions of this branch, since I am an unknown in the maintainership role:

I will only post patches to this branch that:

*) do not fall into an existing maintained subsystem category, unless the appropriate maintainer has relinquished the patch to carry in my tree. *) have previously been posted to LKML for suitable review.

IOW: The purpose is not to sneak something in, or subvert a maintained subsystem. It is purely to carry pieces that have no other home and are maintained under the AlacrityVM project. You can find more details of the project here:

http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/AlacrityVM

If this is not acceptable, or I need to follow some other procedure, please advise me on the proper steps. Perhaps I will update the wiki FAQ on what I learn from your responses :)

Thank you, and Kind Regards,
-Greg

Hi Greg,

Sorry for the slow response.

You just send me the location of your tree and ask for inclusion. You should also mention who should be contacted if I have any problems with this tree (I will assume yourself).

I will add this tree from tomorrow unless someone screams.

That sounds fine.

Here is my boilerplate:

Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As you may know, this is not a judgment of your code. The purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.

You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been:
* submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's Signed-off-by,
* posted to the relevant mailing list,
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell 
[email protected]

Legal Stuff:
By participating in linux-next, your subsystem tree contributions are
public and will be included in the linux-next trees.  You may be sent
e-mail messages indicating errors or other issues when the
patches/commits from your subsystem tree are merged and tested in
linux-next.  These messages may also be cross-posted to the linux-next
mailing list, the linux-kernel mailing list, etc.  The linux-next tree
project and IBM (my employer) make no warranties regarding the linux-next
project, the testing procedures, the results, the e-mails, etc.  If you
don't agree to these ground rules, let me know and I'll remove your tree
from participation in linux-next.

Hi, could you please add git://decibel.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/linux#limits
into the -next tree?

I posted the patches twice, nobody seems to want to pick them up. The last repost is at:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/17/126

I'll try to merge it to 2.6.33.

Thanks.

Hi Jiri,

I have added it from today.

Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As you may know, this is not a judgment of your code. The purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.

You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been:
* submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's Signed-off-by,
* posted to the relevant mailing list,
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell 
[email protected]

Legal Stuff:
By participating in linux-next, your subsystem tree contributions are
public and will be included in the linux-next trees.  You may be sent
e-mail messages indicating errors or other issues when the
patches/commits from your subsystem tree are merged and tested in
linux-next.  These messages may also be cross-posted to the linux-next
mailing list, the linux-kernel mailing list, etc.  The linux-next tree
project and IBM (my employer) make no warranties regarding the linux-next
project, the testing procedures, the results, the e-mails, etc.  If you
don't agree to these ground rules, let me know and I'll remove your tree
from participation in linux-next.

Hi Jiri,

It is actually git://decibel.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/linux#writable_limits, right?

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Hi. Oops, of course it is.

/me wondering: am I that dumb?

Hi,

BTW you may want to check if the current wording is correct:

         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's not ok to submit under e.g. GPL v3 only, I'd suggest "under GPL v2 and optionally other licence(s)" or something like that.

For example code under BSD-style licence (in addition to GPLv2) is present in Linux, though I think any additional licence (the "later" as in "GPL v2 or later", GPL v3, MS EULA etc.) is acceptable as long as it is really additional, i.e., if one can ignore it and "use" GPLv2 exclusively.

IANAL of course.

Krzysztof Halasa

Hi Krzysztof,

Or maybe "under a license compatible with the Linux kernel source".

This was pointed out to me once before but I was hoping not to have to disturb the IBM lawyers again. I guess I will run it past them and see what happens.

Me neither :-)

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Right, it looks better. Now I think the author doesn't even have to licence under GPLv2, e.g. BSD alone will do as well.

Krzysztof Halasa