Based on kernel version 4.9. Page generated on 2016-12-21 14:28 EST.
1 .. _development_early_stage: 2 3 Early-stage planning 4 ==================== 5 6 When contemplating a Linux kernel development project, it can be tempting 7 to jump right in and start coding. As with any significant project, 8 though, much of the groundwork for success is best laid before the first 9 line of code is written. Some time spent in early planning and 10 communication can save far more time later on. 11 12 13 Specifying the problem 14 ---------------------- 15 16 Like any engineering project, a successful kernel enhancement starts with a 17 clear description of the problem to be solved. In some cases, this step is 18 easy: when a driver is needed for a specific piece of hardware, for 19 example. In others, though, it is tempting to confuse the real problem 20 with the proposed solution, and that can lead to difficulties. 21 22 Consider an example: some years ago, developers working with Linux audio 23 sought a way to run applications without dropouts or other artifacts caused 24 by excessive latency in the system. The solution they arrived at was a 25 kernel module intended to hook into the Linux Security Module (LSM) 26 framework; this module could be configured to give specific applications 27 access to the realtime scheduler. This module was implemented and sent to 28 the linux-kernel mailing list, where it immediately ran into problems. 29 30 To the audio developers, this security module was sufficient to solve their 31 immediate problem. To the wider kernel community, though, it was seen as a 32 misuse of the LSM framework (which is not intended to confer privileges 33 onto processes which they would not otherwise have) and a risk to system 34 stability. Their preferred solutions involved realtime scheduling access 35 via the rlimit mechanism for the short term, and ongoing latency reduction 36 work in the long term. 37 38 The audio community, however, could not see past the particular solution 39 they had implemented; they were unwilling to accept alternatives. The 40 resulting disagreement left those developers feeling disillusioned with the 41 entire kernel development process; one of them went back to an audio list 42 and posted this: 43 44 There are a number of very good Linux kernel developers, but they 45 tend to get outshouted by a large crowd of arrogant fools. Trying 46 to communicate user requirements to these people is a waste of 47 time. They are much too "intelligent" to listen to lesser mortals. 48 49 (http://lwn.net/Articles/131776/). 50 51 The reality of the situation was different; the kernel developers were far 52 more concerned about system stability, long-term maintenance, and finding 53 the right solution to the problem than they were with a specific module. 54 The moral of the story is to focus on the problem - not a specific solution 55 - and to discuss it with the development community before investing in the 56 creation of a body of code. 57 58 So, when contemplating a kernel development project, one should obtain 59 answers to a short set of questions: 60 61 - What, exactly, is the problem which needs to be solved? 62 63 - Who are the users affected by this problem? Which use cases should the 64 solution address? 65 66 - How does the kernel fall short in addressing that problem now? 67 68 Only then does it make sense to start considering possible solutions. 69 70 71 Early discussion 72 ---------------- 73 74 When planning a kernel development project, it makes great sense to hold 75 discussions with the community before launching into implementation. Early 76 communication can save time and trouble in a number of ways: 77 78 - It may well be that the problem is addressed by the kernel in ways which 79 you have not understood. The Linux kernel is large and has a number of 80 features and capabilities which are not immediately obvious. Not all 81 kernel capabilities are documented as well as one might like, and it is 82 easy to miss things. Your author has seen the posting of a complete 83 driver which duplicated an existing driver that the new author had been 84 unaware of. Code which reinvents existing wheels is not only wasteful; 85 it will also not be accepted into the mainline kernel. 86 87 - There may be elements of the proposed solution which will not be 88 acceptable for mainline merging. It is better to find out about 89 problems like this before writing the code. 90 91 - It's entirely possible that other developers have thought about the 92 problem; they may have ideas for a better solution, and may be willing 93 to help in the creation of that solution. 94 95 Years of experience with the kernel development community have taught a 96 clear lesson: kernel code which is designed and developed behind closed 97 doors invariably has problems which are only revealed when the code is 98 released into the community. Sometimes these problems are severe, 99 requiring months or years of effort before the code can be brought up to 100 the kernel community's standards. Some examples include: 101 102 - The Devicescape network stack was designed and implemented for 103 single-processor systems. It could not be merged into the mainline 104 until it was made suitable for multiprocessor systems. Retrofitting 105 locking and such into code is a difficult task; as a result, the merging 106 of this code (now called mac80211) was delayed for over a year. 107 108 - The Reiser4 filesystem included a number of capabilities which, in the 109 core kernel developers' opinion, should have been implemented in the 110 virtual filesystem layer instead. It also included features which could 111 not easily be implemented without exposing the system to user-caused 112 deadlocks. The late revelation of these problems - and refusal to 113 address some of them - has caused Reiser4 to stay out of the mainline 114 kernel. 115 116 - The AppArmor security module made use of internal virtual filesystem 117 data structures in ways which were considered to be unsafe and 118 unreliable. This concern (among others) kept AppArmor out of the 119 mainline for years. 120 121 In each of these cases, a great deal of pain and extra work could have been 122 avoided with some early discussion with the kernel developers. 123 124 125 Who do you talk to? 126 ------------------- 127 128 When developers decide to take their plans public, the next question will 129 be: where do we start? The answer is to find the right mailing list(s) and 130 the right maintainer. For mailing lists, the best approach is to look in 131 the MAINTAINERS file for a relevant place to post. If there is a suitable 132 subsystem list, posting there is often preferable to posting on 133 linux-kernel; you are more likely to reach developers with expertise in the 134 relevant subsystem and the environment may be more supportive. 135 136 Finding maintainers can be a bit harder. Again, the MAINTAINERS file is 137 the place to start. That file tends to not always be up to date, though, 138 and not all subsystems are represented there. The person listed in the 139 MAINTAINERS file may, in fact, not be the person who is actually acting in 140 that role currently. So, when there is doubt about who to contact, a 141 useful trick is to use git (and "git log" in particular) to see who is 142 currently active within the subsystem of interest. Look at who is writing 143 patches, and who, if anybody, is attaching Signed-off-by lines to those 144 patches. Those are the people who will be best placed to help with a new 145 development project. 146 147 The task of finding the right maintainer is sometimes challenging enough 148 that the kernel developers have added a script to ease the process: 149 150 :: 151 152 .../scripts/get_maintainer.pl 153 154 This script will return the current maintainer(s) for a given file or 155 directory when given the "-f" option. If passed a patch on the 156 command line, it will list the maintainers who should probably receive 157 copies of the patch. There are a number of options regulating how hard 158 get_maintainer.pl will search for maintainers; please be careful about 159 using the more aggressive options as you may end up including developers 160 who have no real interest in the code you are modifying. 161 162 If all else fails, talking to Andrew Morton can be an effective way to 163 track down a maintainer for a specific piece of code. 164 165 166 When to post? 167 ------------- 168 169 If possible, posting your plans during the early stages can only be 170 helpful. Describe the problem being solved and any plans that have been 171 made on how the implementation will be done. Any information you can 172 provide can help the development community provide useful input on the 173 project. 174 175 One discouraging thing which can happen at this stage is not a hostile 176 reaction, but, instead, little or no reaction at all. The sad truth of the 177 matter is (1) kernel developers tend to be busy, (2) there is no shortage 178 of people with grand plans and little code (or even prospect of code) to 179 back them up, and (3) nobody is obligated to review or comment on ideas 180 posted by others. Beyond that, high-level designs often hide problems 181 which are only reviewed when somebody actually tries to implement those 182 designs; for that reason, kernel developers would rather see the code. 183 184 If a request-for-comments posting yields little in the way of comments, do 185 not assume that it means there is no interest in the project. 186 Unfortunately, you also cannot assume that there are no problems with your 187 idea. The best thing to do in this situation is to proceed, keeping the 188 community informed as you go. 189 190 191 Getting official buy-in 192 ----------------------- 193 194 If your work is being done in a corporate environment - as most Linux 195 kernel work is - you must, obviously, have permission from suitably 196 empowered managers before you can post your company's plans or code to a 197 public mailing list. The posting of code which has not been cleared for 198 release under a GPL-compatible license can be especially problematic; the 199 sooner that a company's management and legal staff can agree on the posting 200 of a kernel development project, the better off everybody involved will be. 201 202 Some readers may be thinking at this point that their kernel work is 203 intended to support a product which does not yet have an officially 204 acknowledged existence. Revealing their employer's plans on a public 205 mailing list may not be a viable option. In cases like this, it is worth 206 considering whether the secrecy is really necessary; there is often no real 207 need to keep development plans behind closed doors. 208 209 That said, there are also cases where a company legitimately cannot 210 disclose its plans early in the development process. Companies with 211 experienced kernel developers may choose to proceed in an open-loop manner 212 on the assumption that they will be able to avoid serious integration 213 problems later. For companies without that sort of in-house expertise, the 214 best option is often to hire an outside developer to review the plans under 215 a non-disclosure agreement. The Linux Foundation operates an NDA program 216 designed to help with this sort of situation; more information can be found 217 at: 218 219 http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/NDA_program 220 221 This kind of review is often enough to avoid serious problems later on 222 without requiring public disclosure of the project.