diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst | 222 |
1 files changed, 222 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst b/Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..af2c0af931d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/3.Early-stage.rst @@ -0,0 +1,222 @@ +.. _development_early_stage: + +Early-stage planning +==================== + +When contemplating a Linux kernel development project, it can be tempting +to jump right in and start coding. As with any significant project, +though, much of the groundwork for success is best laid before the first +line of code is written. Some time spent in early planning and +communication can save far more time later on. + + +Specifying the problem +---------------------- + +Like any engineering project, a successful kernel enhancement starts with a +clear description of the problem to be solved. In some cases, this step is +easy: when a driver is needed for a specific piece of hardware, for +example. In others, though, it is tempting to confuse the real problem +with the proposed solution, and that can lead to difficulties. + +Consider an example: some years ago, developers working with Linux audio +sought a way to run applications without dropouts or other artifacts caused +by excessive latency in the system. The solution they arrived at was a +kernel module intended to hook into the Linux Security Module (LSM) +framework; this module could be configured to give specific applications +access to the realtime scheduler. This module was implemented and sent to +the linux-kernel mailing list, where it immediately ran into problems. + +To the audio developers, this security module was sufficient to solve their +immediate problem. To the wider kernel community, though, it was seen as a +misuse of the LSM framework (which is not intended to confer privileges +onto processes which they would not otherwise have) and a risk to system +stability. Their preferred solutions involved realtime scheduling access +via the rlimit mechanism for the short term, and ongoing latency reduction +work in the long term. + +The audio community, however, could not see past the particular solution +they had implemented; they were unwilling to accept alternatives. The +resulting disagreement left those developers feeling disillusioned with the +entire kernel development process; one of them went back to an audio list +and posted this: + + There are a number of very good Linux kernel developers, but they + tend to get outshouted by a large crowd of arrogant fools. Trying + to communicate user requirements to these people is a waste of + time. They are much too "intelligent" to listen to lesser mortals. + +(http://lwn.net/Articles/131776/). + +The reality of the situation was different; the kernel developers were far +more concerned about system stability, long-term maintenance, and finding +the right solution to the problem than they were with a specific module. +The moral of the story is to focus on the problem - not a specific solution +- and to discuss it with the development community before investing in the +creation of a body of code. + +So, when contemplating a kernel development project, one should obtain +answers to a short set of questions: + + - What, exactly, is the problem which needs to be solved? + + - Who are the users affected by this problem? Which use cases should the + solution address? + + - How does the kernel fall short in addressing that problem now? + +Only then does it make sense to start considering possible solutions. + + +Early discussion +---------------- + +When planning a kernel development project, it makes great sense to hold +discussions with the community before launching into implementation. Early +communication can save time and trouble in a number of ways: + + - It may well be that the problem is addressed by the kernel in ways which + you have not understood. The Linux kernel is large and has a number of + features and capabilities which are not immediately obvious. Not all + kernel capabilities are documented as well as one might like, and it is + easy to miss things. Your author has seen the posting of a complete + driver which duplicated an existing driver that the new author had been + unaware of. Code which reinvents existing wheels is not only wasteful; + it will also not be accepted into the mainline kernel. + + - There may be elements of the proposed solution which will not be + acceptable for mainline merging. It is better to find out about + problems like this before writing the code. + + - It's entirely possible that other developers have thought about the + problem; they may have ideas for a better solution, and may be willing + to help in the creation of that solution. + +Years of experience with the kernel development community have taught a +clear lesson: kernel code which is designed and developed behind closed +doors invariably has problems which are only revealed when the code is +released into the community. Sometimes these problems are severe, +requiring months or years of effort before the code can be brought up to +the kernel community's standards. Some examples include: + + - The Devicescape network stack was designed and implemented for + single-processor systems. It could not be merged into the mainline + until it was made suitable for multiprocessor systems. Retrofitting + locking and such into code is a difficult task; as a result, the merging + of this code (now called mac80211) was delayed for over a year. + + - The Reiser4 filesystem included a number of capabilities which, in the + core kernel developers' opinion, should have been implemented in the + virtual filesystem layer instead. It also included features which could + not easily be implemented without exposing the system to user-caused + deadlocks. The late revelation of these problems - and refusal to + address some of them - has caused Reiser4 to stay out of the mainline + kernel. + + - The AppArmor security module made use of internal virtual filesystem + data structures in ways which were considered to be unsafe and + unreliable. This concern (among others) kept AppArmor out of the + mainline for years. + +In each of these cases, a great deal of pain and extra work could have been +avoided with some early discussion with the kernel developers. + + +Who do you talk to? +------------------- + +When developers decide to take their plans public, the next question will +be: where do we start? The answer is to find the right mailing list(s) and +the right maintainer. For mailing lists, the best approach is to look in +the MAINTAINERS file for a relevant place to post. If there is a suitable +subsystem list, posting there is often preferable to posting on +linux-kernel; you are more likely to reach developers with expertise in the +relevant subsystem and the environment may be more supportive. + +Finding maintainers can be a bit harder. Again, the MAINTAINERS file is +the place to start. That file tends to not always be up to date, though, +and not all subsystems are represented there. The person listed in the +MAINTAINERS file may, in fact, not be the person who is actually acting in +that role currently. So, when there is doubt about who to contact, a +useful trick is to use git (and "git log" in particular) to see who is +currently active within the subsystem of interest. Look at who is writing +patches, and who, if anybody, is attaching Signed-off-by lines to those +patches. Those are the people who will be best placed to help with a new +development project. + +The task of finding the right maintainer is sometimes challenging enough +that the kernel developers have added a script to ease the process: + +:: + + .../scripts/get_maintainer.pl + +This script will return the current maintainer(s) for a given file or +directory when given the "-f" option. If passed a patch on the +command line, it will list the maintainers who should probably receive +copies of the patch. There are a number of options regulating how hard +get_maintainer.pl will search for maintainers; please be careful about +using the more aggressive options as you may end up including developers +who have no real interest in the code you are modifying. + +If all else fails, talking to Andrew Morton can be an effective way to +track down a maintainer for a specific piece of code. + + +When to post? +------------- + +If possible, posting your plans during the early stages can only be +helpful. Describe the problem being solved and any plans that have been +made on how the implementation will be done. Any information you can +provide can help the development community provide useful input on the +project. + +One discouraging thing which can happen at this stage is not a hostile +reaction, but, instead, little or no reaction at all. The sad truth of the +matter is (1) kernel developers tend to be busy, (2) there is no shortage +of people with grand plans and little code (or even prospect of code) to +back them up, and (3) nobody is obligated to review or comment on ideas +posted by others. Beyond that, high-level designs often hide problems +which are only reviewed when somebody actually tries to implement those +designs; for that reason, kernel developers would rather see the code. + +If a request-for-comments posting yields little in the way of comments, do +not assume that it means there is no interest in the project. +Unfortunately, you also cannot assume that there are no problems with your +idea. The best thing to do in this situation is to proceed, keeping the +community informed as you go. + + +Getting official buy-in +----------------------- + +If your work is being done in a corporate environment - as most Linux +kernel work is - you must, obviously, have permission from suitably +empowered managers before you can post your company's plans or code to a +public mailing list. The posting of code which has not been cleared for +release under a GPL-compatible license can be especially problematic; the +sooner that a company's management and legal staff can agree on the posting +of a kernel development project, the better off everybody involved will be. + +Some readers may be thinking at this point that their kernel work is +intended to support a product which does not yet have an officially +acknowledged existence. Revealing their employer's plans on a public +mailing list may not be a viable option. In cases like this, it is worth +considering whether the secrecy is really necessary; there is often no real +need to keep development plans behind closed doors. + +That said, there are also cases where a company legitimately cannot +disclose its plans early in the development process. Companies with +experienced kernel developers may choose to proceed in an open-loop manner +on the assumption that they will be able to avoid serious integration +problems later. For companies without that sort of in-house expertise, the +best option is often to hire an outside developer to review the plans under +a non-disclosure agreement. The Linux Foundation operates an NDA program +designed to help with this sort of situation; more information can be found +at: + + http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/NDA_program + +This kind of review is often enough to avoid serious problems later on +without requiring public disclosure of the project. |