Merge tag 'net-6.2-rc3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net

Pull networking fixes from Jakub Kicinski:
 "Including fixes from bpf, wifi, and netfilter.

  Current release - regressions:

   - bpf: fix nullness propagation for reg to reg comparisons, avoid
     null-deref

   - inet: control sockets should not use current thread task_frag

   - bpf: always use maximal size for copy_array()

   - eth: bnxt_en: don't link netdev to a devlink port for VFs

  Current release - new code bugs:

   - rxrpc: fix a couple of potential use-after-frees

   - netfilter: conntrack: fix IPv6 exthdr error check

   - wifi: iwlwifi: fw: skip PPAG for JF, avoid FW crashes

   - eth: dsa: qca8k: various fixes for the in-band register access

   - eth: nfp: fix schedule in atomic context when sync mc address

   - eth: renesas: rswitch: fix getting mac address from device tree

   - mobile: ipa: use proper endpoint mask for suspend

  Previous releases - regressions:

   - tcp: add TIME_WAIT sockets in bhash2, fix regression caught by
     Jiri / python tests

   - net: tc: don't intepret cls results when asked to drop, fix
     oob-access

   - vrf: determine the dst using the original ifindex for multicast

   - eth: bnxt_en:
      - fix XDP RX path if BPF adjusted packet length
      - fix HDS (header placement) and jumbo thresholds for RX packets

   - eth: ice: xsk: do not use xdp_return_frame() on tx_buf->raw_buf,
     avoid memory corruptions

  Previous releases - always broken:

   - ulp: prevent ULP without clone op from entering the LISTEN status

   - veth: fix race with AF_XDP exposing old or uninitialized
     descriptors

   - bpf:
      - pull before calling skb_postpull_rcsum() (fix checksum support
        and avoid a WARN())
      - fix panic due to wrong pageattr of im->image (when livepatch and
        kretfunc coexist)
      - keep a reference to the mm, in case the task is dead

   - mptcp: fix deadlock in fastopen error path

   - netfilter:
      - nf_tables: perform type checking for existing sets
      - nf_tables: honor set timeout and garbage collection updates
      - ipset: fix hash:net,port,net hang with /0 subnet
      - ipset: avoid hung task warning when adding/deleting entries

   - selftests: net:
      - fix cmsg_so_mark.sh test hang on non-x86 systems
      - fix the arp_ndisc_evict_nocarrier test for IPv6

   - usb: rndis_host: secure rndis_query check against int overflow

   - eth: r8169: fix dmar pte write access during suspend/resume with
     WOL

   - eth: lan966x: fix configuration of the PCS

   - eth: sparx5: fix reading of the MAC address

   - eth: qed: allow sleep in qed_mcp_trace_dump()

   - eth: hns3:
      - fix interrupts re-initialization after VF FLR
      - fix handling of promisc when MAC addr table gets full
      - refine the handling for VF heartbeat

   - eth: mlx5:
      - properly handle ingress QinQ-tagged packets on VST
      - fix io_eq_size and event_eq_size params validation on big endian
      - fix RoCE setting at HCA level if not supported at all
      - don't turn CQE compression on by default for IPoIB

   - eth: ena:
      - fix toeplitz initial hash key value
      - account for the number of XDP-processed bytes in interface stats
      - fix rx_copybreak value update

  Misc:

   - ethtool: harden phy stat handling against buggy drivers

   - docs: netdev: convert maintainer's doc from FAQ to a normal
     document"

* tag 'net-6.2-rc3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net: (112 commits)
  caif: fix memory leak in cfctrl_linkup_request()
  inet: control sockets should not use current thread task_frag
  net/ulp: prevent ULP without clone op from entering the LISTEN status
  qed: allow sleep in qed_mcp_trace_dump()
  MAINTAINERS: Update maintainers for ptp_vmw driver
  usb: rndis_host: Secure rndis_query check against int overflow
  net: dpaa: Fix dtsec check for PCS availability
  octeontx2-pf: Fix lmtst ID used in aura free
  drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad: return when there's no aggregator
  netfilter: ipset: Rework long task execution when adding/deleting entries
  netfilter: ipset: fix hash:net,port,net hang with /0 subnet
  net: sparx5: Fix reading of the MAC address
  vxlan: Fix memory leaks in error path
  net: sched: htb: fix htb_classify() kernel-doc
  net: sched: cbq: dont intepret cls results when asked to drop
  net: sched: atm: dont intepret cls results when asked to drop
  dt-bindings: net: marvell,orion-mdio: Fix examples
  dt-bindings: net: sun8i-emac: Add phy-supply property
  net: ipa: use proper endpoint mask for suspend
  selftests: net: return non-zero for failures reported in arp_ndisc_evict_nocarrier
  ...

3 files changed, 228 insertions, 174 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/allwinner,sun8i-a83t-emac.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/allwinner,sun8i-a83t-emac.yaml
index 1432fda3b603..47bc2057e629 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/allwinner,sun8i-a83t-emac.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/allwinner,sun8i-a83t-emac.yaml
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ properties:
   clock-names:
     const: stmmaceth
 
+  phy-supply:
+    description: PHY regulator
+
   syscon:
     $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
     description:
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/marvell,orion-mdio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/marvell,orion-mdio.yaml
index d2906b4a0f59..e35da8b01dc2 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/marvell,orion-mdio.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/marvell,orion-mdio.yaml
@@ -16,9 +16,6 @@ description: |
   8k has a second unit which provides an interface with the xMDIO bus. This
   driver handles these interfaces.
 
-allOf:
-  - $ref: "mdio.yaml#"
-
 properties:
   compatible:
     enum:
@@ -39,13 +36,38 @@ required:
   - compatible
   - reg
 
+allOf:
+  - $ref: mdio.yaml#
+
+  - if:
+      required:
+        - interrupts
+
+    then:
+      properties:
+        reg:
+          items:
+            - items:
+                - $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/cell
+                - const: 0x84
+
+    else:
+      properties:
+        reg:
+          items:
+            - items:
+                - $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/cell
+                - enum:
+                    - 0x4
+                    - 0x10
+
 unevaluatedProperties: false
 
 examples:
   - |
     mdio@d0072004 {
       compatible = "marvell,orion-mdio";
-      reg = <0xd0072004 0x4>;
+      reg = <0xd0072004 0x84>;
       #address-cells = <1>;
       #size-cells = <0>;
       interrupts = <30>;
diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index 1fa5ab8754d3..4a75686d35ab 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 
 .. _netdev-FAQ:
 
-==========
-netdev FAQ
-==========
+=============================
+Networking subsystem (netdev)
+=============================
 
 tl;dr
 -----
@@ -15,14 +15,15 @@ tl;dr
  - don't repost your patches within one 24h period
  - reverse xmas tree
 
-What is netdev?
----------------
-It is a mailing list for all network-related Linux stuff.  This
+netdev
+------
+
+netdev is a mailing list for all network-related Linux stuff.  This
 includes anything found under net/ (i.e. core code like IPv6) and
 drivers/net (i.e. hardware specific drivers) in the Linux source tree.
 
 Note that some subsystems (e.g. wireless drivers) which have a high
-volume of traffic have their own specific mailing lists.
+volume of traffic have their own specific mailing lists and trees.
 
 The netdev list is managed (like many other Linux mailing lists) through
 VGER (http://vger.kernel.org/) with archives available at
@@ -32,32 +33,10 @@ Aside from subsystems like those mentioned above, all network-related
 Linux development (i.e. RFC, review, comments, etc.) takes place on
 netdev.
 
-How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux?
---------------------------------------------------------------
-There are always two trees (git repositories) in play.  Both are
-driven by David Miller, the main network maintainer.  There is the
-``net`` tree, and the ``net-next`` tree.  As you can probably guess from
-the names, the ``net`` tree is for fixes to existing code already in the
-mainline tree from Linus, and ``net-next`` is where the new code goes
-for the future release.  You can find the trees here:
-
-- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git
-- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git
-
-How do I indicate which tree (net vs. net-next) my patch should be in?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-To help maintainers and CI bots you should explicitly mark which tree
-your patch is targeting. Assuming that you use git, use the prefix
-flag::
-
-  git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next' start..finish
+Development cycle
+-----------------
 
-Use ``net`` instead of ``net-next`` (always lower case) in the above for
-bug-fix ``net`` content.
-
-How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus tree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-To understand this, you need to know a bit of background information on
+Here is a bit of background information on
 the cadence of Linux development.  Each new release starts off with a
 two week "merge window" where the main maintainers feed their new stuff
 to Linus for merging into the mainline tree.  After the two weeks, the
@@ -69,9 +48,33 @@ rc2 is released.  This repeats on a roughly weekly basis until rc7
 state of churn), and a week after the last vX.Y-rcN was done, the
 official vX.Y is released.
 
-Relating that to netdev: At the beginning of the 2-week merge window,
-the ``net-next`` tree will be closed - no new changes/features.  The
-accumulated new content of the past ~10 weeks will be passed onto
+To find out where we are now in the cycle - load the mainline (Linus)
+page here:
+
+  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
+
+and note the top of the "tags" section.  If it is rc1, it is early in
+the dev cycle.  If it was tagged rc7 a week ago, then a release is
+probably imminent. If the most recent tag is a final release tag
+(without an ``-rcN`` suffix) - we are most likely in a merge window
+and ``net-next`` is closed.
+
+git trees and patch flow
+------------------------
+
+There are two networking trees (git repositories) in play.  Both are
+driven by David Miller, the main network maintainer.  There is the
+``net`` tree, and the ``net-next`` tree.  As you can probably guess from
+the names, the ``net`` tree is for fixes to existing code already in the
+mainline tree from Linus, and ``net-next`` is where the new code goes
+for the future release.  You can find the trees here:
+
+- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git
+- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git
+
+Relating that to kernel development: At the beginning of the 2-week
+merge window, the ``net-next`` tree will be closed - no new changes/features.
+The accumulated new content of the past ~10 weeks will be passed onto
 mainline/Linus via a pull request for vX.Y -- at the same time, the
 ``net`` tree will start accumulating fixes for this pulled content
 relating to vX.Y
@@ -103,22 +106,14 @@ focus for ``net`` is on stabilization and bug fixes.
 
 Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
 
-So where are we now in this cycle?
-----------------------------------
+netdev patch review
+-------------------
 
-Load the mainline (Linus) page here:
+Patch status
+~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
-
-and note the top of the "tags" section.  If it is rc1, it is early in
-the dev cycle.  If it was tagged rc7 a week ago, then a release is
-probably imminent. If the most recent tag is a final release tag
-(without an ``-rcN`` suffix) - we are most likely in a merge window
-and ``net-next`` is closed.
-
-How can I tell the status of a patch I've sent?
------------------------------------------------
-Start by looking at the main patchworks queue for netdev:
+Status of a patch can be checked by looking at the main patchwork
+queue for netdev:
 
   https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/
 
@@ -127,73 +122,141 @@ patch. Patches are indexed by the ``Message-ID`` header of the emails
 which carried them so if you have trouble finding your patch append
 the value of ``Message-ID`` to the URL above.
 
-How long before my patch is accepted?
--------------------------------------
-Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than
-48h). But be patient, if your patch is active in patchwork (i.e. it's
-listed on the project's patch list) the chances it was missed are close to zero.
-Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
-patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
-bottom of the priority list.
+Updating patch status
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-Should I directly update patchwork state of my own patches?
------------------------------------------------------------
 It may be tempting to help the maintainers and update the state of your
-own patches when you post a new version or spot a bug. Please do not do that.
+own patches when you post a new version or spot a bug. Please **do not**
+do that.
 Interfering with the patch status on patchwork will only cause confusion. Leave
 it to the maintainer to figure out what is the most recent and current
 version that should be applied. If there is any doubt, the maintainer
 will reply and ask what should be done.
 
-How do I divide my work into patches?
--------------------------------------
+Review timelines
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer. Each patch is read separately
-and therefore should constitute a comprehensible step towards your stated
-goal.
+Generally speaking, the patches get triaged quickly (in less than
+48h). But be patient, if your patch is active in patchwork (i.e. it's
+listed on the project's patch list) the chances it was missed are close to zero.
+Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
+patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
+bottom of the priority list.
 
-Avoid sending series longer than 15 patches. Larger series takes longer
-to review as reviewers will defer looking at it until they find a large
-chunk of time. A small series can be reviewed in a short time, so Maintainers
-just do it. As a result, a sequence of smaller series gets merged quicker and
-with better review coverage. Re-posting large series also increases the mailing
-list traffic.
+Partial resends
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-I made changes to only a few patches in a patch series should I resend only those changed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-No, please resend the entire patch series and make sure you do number your
+Please always resend the entire patch series and make sure you do number your
 patches such that it is clear this is the latest and greatest set of patches
-that can be applied.
-
-I have received review feedback, when should I post a revised version of the patches?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Allow at least 24 hours to pass between postings. This will ensure reviewers
-from all geographical locations have a chance to chime in. Do not wait
-too long (weeks) between postings either as it will make it harder for reviewers
-to recall all the context.
+that can be applied. Do not try to resend just the patches which changed.
 
-Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new
-version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still
-ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer.
+Handling misapplied patches
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-I submitted multiple versions of a patch series and it looks like a version other than the last one has been accepted, what should I do?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Occasionally a patch series gets applied before receiving critical feedback,
+or the wrong version of a series gets applied.
 There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that.
 Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix
 the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be
 merged.
 
-Are there special rules regarding stable submissions on netdev?
----------------------------------------------------------------
+Stable tree
+~~~~~~~~~~~
+
 While it used to be the case that netdev submissions were not supposed
 to carry explicit ``CC: stable@vger.kernel.org`` tags that is no longer
 the case today. Please follow the standard stable rules in
 :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>`,
 and make sure you include appropriate Fixes tags!
 
-Is the comment style convention different for the networking content?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Yes, in a largely trivial way.  Instead of this::
+Security fixes
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Do not email netdev maintainers directly if you think you discovered
+a bug that might have possible security implications.
+The current netdev maintainer has consistently requested that
+people use the mailing lists and not reach out directly.  If you aren't
+OK with that, then perhaps consider mailing security@kernel.org or
+reading about http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros
+as possible alternative mechanisms.
+
+
+Co-posting changes to user space components
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+User space code exercising kernel features should be posted
+alongside kernel patches. This gives reviewers a chance to see
+how any new interface is used and how well it works.
+
+When user space tools reside in the kernel repo itself all changes
+should generally come as one series. If series becomes too large
+or the user space project is not reviewed on netdev include a link
+to a public repo where user space patches can be seen.
+
+In case user space tooling lives in a separate repository but is
+reviewed on netdev  (e.g. patches to ``iproute2`` tools) kernel and
+user space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted
+to the mailing list, e.g.::
+
+  [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: some feature cover letter
+   └─ [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: some feature prep
+   └─ [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: some feature do it
+   └─ [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftest: net: some feature
+
+  [PATCH iproute2-next] ip: add support for some feature
+
+Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork
+(as of patchwork 2.2.2).
+
+Preparing changes
+-----------------
+
+Attention to detail is important.  Re-read your own work as if you were the
+reviewer.  You can start with using ``checkpatch.pl``, perhaps even with
+the ``--strict`` flag.  But do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so.
+If your change is a bug fix, make sure your commit log indicates the
+end-user visible symptom, the underlying reason as to why it happens,
+and then if necessary, explain why the fix proposed is the best way to
+get things done.  Don't mangle whitespace, and as is common, don't
+mis-indent function arguments that span multiple lines.  If it is your
+first patch, mail it to yourself so you can test apply it to an
+unpatched tree to confirm infrastructure didn't mangle it.
+
+Finally, go back and read
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
+to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.
+
+Indicating target tree
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+To help maintainers and CI bots you should explicitly mark which tree
+your patch is targeting. Assuming that you use git, use the prefix
+flag::
+
+  git format-patch --subject-prefix='PATCH net-next' start..finish
+
+Use ``net`` instead of ``net-next`` (always lower case) in the above for
+bug-fix ``net`` content.
+
+Dividing work into patches
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer. Each patch is read separately
+and therefore should constitute a comprehensible step towards your stated
+goal.
+
+Avoid sending series longer than 15 patches. Larger series takes longer
+to review as reviewers will defer looking at it until they find a large
+chunk of time. A small series can be reviewed in a short time, so Maintainers
+just do it. As a result, a sequence of smaller series gets merged quicker and
+with better review coverage. Re-posting large series also increases the mailing
+list traffic.
+
+Multi-line comments
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Comment style convention is slightly different for networking and most of
+the tree.  Instead of this::
 
   /*
    * foobar blah blah blah
@@ -206,8 +269,8 @@ it is requested that you make it look like this::
    * another line of text
    */
 
-What is "reverse xmas tree"?
-----------------------------
+Local variable ordering ("reverse xmas tree", "RCS")
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 Netdev has a convention for ordering local variables in functions.
 Order the variable declaration lines longest to shortest, e.g.::
@@ -219,21 +282,31 @@ Order the variable declaration lines longest to shortest, e.g.::
 If there are dependencies between the variables preventing the ordering
 move the initialization out of line.
 
-I am working in existing code which uses non-standard formatting. Which formatting should I use?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Make your code follow the most recent guidelines, so that eventually all code
+Format precedence
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+When working in existing code which uses nonstandard formatting make
+your code follow the most recent guidelines, so that eventually all code
 in the domain of netdev is in the preferred format.
 
-I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar. Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-No. The current netdev maintainer has consistently requested that
-people use the mailing lists and not reach out directly.  If you aren't
-OK with that, then perhaps consider mailing security@kernel.org or
-reading about http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros
-as possible alternative mechanisms.
+Resending after review
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Allow at least 24 hours to pass between postings. This will ensure reviewers
+from all geographical locations have a chance to chime in. Do not wait
+too long (weeks) between postings either as it will make it harder for reviewers
+to recall all the context.
+
+Make sure you address all the feedback in your new posting. Do not post a new
+version of the code if the discussion about the previous version is still
+ongoing, unless directly instructed by a reviewer.
+
+Testing
+-------
+
+Expected level of testing
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-What level of testing is expected before I submit my change?
-------------------------------------------------------------
 At the very minimum your changes must survive an ``allyesconfig`` and an
 ``allmodconfig`` build with ``W=1`` set without new warnings or failures.
 
@@ -244,86 +317,42 @@ and the patch series contains a set of kernel selftest for
 You are expected to test your changes on top of the relevant networking
 tree (``net`` or ``net-next``) and not e.g. a stable tree or ``linux-next``.
 
-How do I post corresponding changes to user space components?
--------------------------------------------------------------
-User space code exercising kernel features should be posted
-alongside kernel patches. This gives reviewers a chance to see
-how any new interface is used and how well it works.
-
-When user space tools reside in the kernel repo itself all changes
-should generally come as one series. If series becomes too large
-or the user space project is not reviewed on netdev include a link
-to a public repo where user space patches can be seen.
-
-In case user space tooling lives in a separate repository but is
-reviewed on netdev  (e.g. patches to ``iproute2`` tools) kernel and
-user space patches should form separate series (threads) when posted
-to the mailing list, e.g.::
-
-  [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: some feature cover letter
-   └─ [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: some feature prep
-   └─ [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: some feature do it
-   └─ [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftest: net: some feature
-
-  [PATCH iproute2-next] ip: add support for some feature
-
-Posting as one thread is discouraged because it confuses patchwork
-(as of patchwork 2.2.2).
-
-Can I reproduce the checks from patchwork on my local machine?
---------------------------------------------------------------
+patchwork checks
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
 Checks in patchwork are mostly simple wrappers around existing kernel
 scripts, the sources are available at:
 
 https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/tree/master/tests
 
-Running all the builds and checks locally is a pain, can I post my patches and have the patchwork bot validate them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-No, you must ensure that your patches are ready by testing them locally
+**Do not** post your patches just to run them through the checks.
+You must ensure that your patches are ready by testing them locally
 before posting to the mailing list. The patchwork build bot instance
 gets overloaded very easily and netdev@vger really doesn't need more
 traffic if we can help it.
 
-netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests?
--------------------------------------------------------------
+netdevsim
+~~~~~~~~~
 
-No, ``netdevsim`` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests.
-(Please add your tests under ``tools/testing/selftests/``.)
+``netdevsim`` is a test driver which can be used to exercise driver
+configuration APIs without requiring capable hardware.
+Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are strongly encouraged when
+adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself is **not** considered
+a use case/user. You must also implement the new APIs in a real driver.
 
-We also give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future
+We give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future
 in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI.
 
-Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API?
--------------------------------------------
-
-Linux kernel has a long standing rule that no API should be added unless
-it has a real, in-tree user. Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are
-strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself
-is **not** considered a use case/user.
-
-Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd?
---------------------------------------------------------------
-Attention to detail.  Re-read your own work as if you were the
-reviewer.  You can start with using ``checkpatch.pl``, perhaps even with
-the ``--strict`` flag.  But do not be mindlessly robotic in doing so.
-If your change is a bug fix, make sure your commit log indicates the
-end-user visible symptom, the underlying reason as to why it happens,
-and then if necessary, explain why the fix proposed is the best way to
-get things done.  Don't mangle whitespace, and as is common, don't
-mis-indent function arguments that span multiple lines.  If it is your
-first patch, mail it to yourself so you can test apply it to an
-unpatched tree to confirm infrastructure didn't mangle it.
-
-Finally, go back and read
-:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
-to be sure you are not repeating some common mistake documented there.
+``netdevsim`` is reserved for use by upstream tests only, so any
+new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under
+``tools/testing/selftests/``.
 
-My company uses peer feedback in employee performance reviews. Can I ask netdev maintainers for feedback?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Testimonials / feedback
+-----------------------
 
-Yes, especially if you spend significant amount of time reviewing code
+Some companies use peer feedback in employee performance reviews.
+Please feel free to request feedback from netdev maintainers,
+especially if you spend significant amount of time reviewing code
 and go out of your way to improve shared infrastructure.
 
 The feedback must be requested by you, the contributor, and will always