Add an (initial?) patch submission checklist, focusing mainly on testing. Yes, all patches must be tested, and that starts (but does not end) with the patch author. Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> --- .../bcachefs/SubmittingPatches.rst | 76 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/bcachefs/SubmittingPatches.rst diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/bcachefs/SubmittingPatches.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/bcachefs/SubmittingPatches.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..5e4615620c4a --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/bcachefs/SubmittingPatches.rst @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Submitting patches to bcachefs: +=============================== + +Patches must be tested before being submitted, either with the xfstests suite +[0], or the full bcachefs test suite in ktest [1], depending on what's being +touched. Note that ktest wraps xfstests and will be an easier method to running +it for most users; it includes single-command wrappers for all the mainstream +in-kernel local filesystems. + +Patches will undergo more testing after being merged (including +lockdep/kasan/preempt/etc. variants), these are not generally required to be +run by the submitter - but do put some thought into what you're changing and +which tests might be relevant, e.g. are you dealing with tricky memory layout +work? kasan, are you doing locking work? then lockdep; and ktest includes +single-command variants for the debug build types you'll most likely need. + +The exception to this rule is incomplete WIP/RFC patches: if you're working on +something nontrivial, it's encouraged to send out a WIP patch to let people +know what you're doing and make sure you're on the right track. Just make sure +it includes a brief note as to what's done and what's incomplete, to avoid +confusion. + +Rigorous checkpatch.pl adherence is not required (many of its warnings are +considered out of date), but try not to deviate too much without reason. + +Focus on writing code that reads well and is organized well; code should be +aesthetically pleasing. + +CI: +=== + +Instead of running your tests locally, when running the full test suite it's +prefereable to let a server farm do it in parallel, and then have the results +in a nice test dashboard (which can tell you which failures are new, and +presents results in a git log view, avoiding the need for most bisecting). + +That exists [2], and community members may request an account. If you work for +a big tech company, you'll need to help out with server costs to get access - +but the CI is not restricted to running bcachefs tests: it runs any ktest test +(which generally makes it easy to wrap other tests that can run in qemu). + +Other things to think about: +============================ + +- How will we debug this code? Is there sufficient introspection to diagnose + when something starts acting wonky on a user machine? + +- Does it make the codebase more or less of a mess? Can we also try to do some + organizing, too? + +- Do new tests need to be written? New assertions? How do we know and verify + that the code is correct, and what happens if something goes wrong? + +- Does it need to be performance tested? Should we add new peformance counters? + +- If it's a new on disk format feature - have upgrades and downgrades been + tested? (Automated tests exists but aren't in the CI, due to the hassle of + disk image management; coordinate to have them run.) + +Mailing list, IRC: +================== + +Patches should hit the list [3], but much discussion and code review happens on +IRC as well [4]; many people appreciate the more conversational approach and +quicker feedback. + +Additionally, we have a lively user community doing excellent QA work, which +exists primarily on IRC. Please make use of that resource; user feedback is +important for any nontrivial feature, and documenting it in commit messages +would be a good idea. + +[0]: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfstests-dev.git +[1]: https://evilpiepirate.org/git/ktest.git/ +[2]: https://evilpiepirate.org/~testdashboard/ci/ +[3]: linux-bcachefs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +[4]: irc.oftc.net#bcache, #bcachefs-dev -- 2.45.2
