Add the full text of the CC-BY-4.0 license to the kernel tree as well as
the required tags for reference and tooling.
The license text was copied directly from this url, but a 'Creative
Commons' was added before 'Attribution 4.0 International' in the first
line:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
---
For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
afaics better than using MIT for text files.
Christoph, I stumbled upon commit 19e6420e4170 ("LICENSES: Remove CC-BY-SA-4.0
license text"), where you wrote:
> Using non-GPL licenses for our documentation is rather problematic, as it can
> directly include other files, which generally are GPLv2 licensed and thus not
> compatible.
Do you think this could be an issue here, too? If so, how? The document I added
doesn't directly include other files; but yes, their title might get tracked in
by sphinx when it's processing the document. Is that something we should worry
about?
Can I prevent this or other licensing troubles somehow in the text that uses it?
Can I for example add a hint near the license tag to the header to prevent
trouble? Maybe something like this: "Make sure to use the plaintext version
straight from the sources in case you want to use this text under CC-BY-4.0, as
processed versions (like the HTML version) of this text will have text in them
that is taken from other files which that are not available under CC-BY-4.0
license"? Or should we declare CC-BY-4.0 only to be useful for dual-licensed
content (like those in LICENSES/dual/)?
Ciao, Thorsten
---
LICENSES/preferred/CC-BY-4.0 | 405 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 405 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 LICENSES/preferred/CC-BY-4.0
diff --git a/LICENSES/preferred/CC-BY-4.0 b/LICENSES/preferred/CC-BY-4.0
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..20c39f42d95f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSES/preferred/CC-BY-4.0
@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
+Valid-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
+SPDX-URL: https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0
+Usage-Guide:
+ To use the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license put
+ the following SPDX tag/value pair into a comment according to the
+ placement guidelines in the licensing rules documentation:
+ SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
+License-Text:
+
+Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
+
+=======================================================================
+
+Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and
+does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of
+Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or
+other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related
+information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no
+warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their
+terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons
+disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the
+fullest extent possible.
+
+Using Creative Commons Public Licenses
+
+Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and
+conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share
+original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright
+and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The
+following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not
+exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.
+
+ Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are
+ intended for use by those authorized to give the public
+ permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by
+ copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are
+ irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms
+ and conditions of the license they choose before applying it.
+ Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before
+ applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the
+ material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any
+ material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-
+ licensed material, or material used under an exception or
+ limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors:
+ wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors
+
+ Considerations for the public: By using one of our public
+ licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the
+ licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If
+ the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for
+ example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to
+ copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our
+ licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain
+ other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of
+ the licensed material may still be restricted for other
+ reasons, including because others have copyright or other
+ rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests,
+ such as asking that all changes be marked or described.
+ Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to
+ respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations
+ for the public:
+ wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees
+
+=======================================================================
+
+Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
+
+By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree
+to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons
+Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the
+extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are
+granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of
+these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in
+consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the
+Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.
+
+
+Section 1 -- Definitions.
+
+ a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar
+ Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material
+ and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered,
+ arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring
+ permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the
+ Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed
+ Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording,
+ Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is
+ synched in timed relation with a moving image.
+
+ b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright
+ and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in
+ accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.
+
+ c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights
+ closely related to copyright including, without limitation,
+ performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database
+ Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or
+ categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights
+ specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar
+ Rights.
+
+ d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the
+ absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws
+ fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright
+ Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international
+ agreements.
+
+ e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or
+ any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights
+ that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.
+
+ f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database,
+ or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public
+ License.
+
+ g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the
+ terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to
+ all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the
+ Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
+
+ h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights
+ under this Public License.
+
+ i. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or
+ process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such
+ as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution,
+ dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material
+ available to the public including in ways that members of the
+ public may access the material from a place and at a time
+ individually chosen by them.
+
+ j. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright
+ resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of
+ the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases,
+ as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially
+ equivalent rights anywhere in the world.
+
+ k. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights
+ under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.
+
+
+Section 2 -- Scope.
+
+ a. License grant.
+
+ 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License,
+ the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free,
+ non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to
+ exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
+
+ a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or
+ in part; and
+
+ b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.
+
+ 2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where
+ Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public
+ License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with
+ its terms and conditions.
+
+ 3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section
+ 6(a).
+
+ 4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The
+ Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in
+ all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created,
+ and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The
+ Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or
+ authority to forbid You from making technical modifications
+ necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including
+ technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective
+ Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License,
+ simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)
+ (4) never produces Adapted Material.
+
+ 5. Downstream recipients.
+
+ a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every
+ recipient of the Licensed Material automatically
+ receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the
+ Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this
+ Public License.
+
+ b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose
+ any additional or different terms or conditions on, or
+ apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the
+ Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
+ Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed
+ Material.
+
+ 6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or
+ may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You
+ are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected
+ with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by,
+ the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as
+ provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
+
+ b. Other rights.
+
+ 1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not
+ licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity,
+ privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to
+ the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to
+ assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited
+ extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed
+ Rights, but not otherwise.
+
+ 2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this
+ Public License.
+
+ 3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to
+ collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed
+ Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society
+ under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory
+ licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly
+ reserves any right to collect such royalties.
+
+
+Section 3 -- License Conditions.
+
+Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the
+following conditions.
+
+ a. Attribution.
+
+ 1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
+ form), You must:
+
+ a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
+ with the Licensed Material:
+
+ i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed
+ Material and any others designated to receive
+ attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by
+ the Licensor (including by pseudonym if
+ designated);
+
+ ii. a copyright notice;
+
+ iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;
+
+ iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of
+ warranties;
+
+ v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the
+ extent reasonably practicable;
+
+ b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and
+ retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
+
+ c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this
+ Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or
+ hyperlink to, this Public License.
+
+ 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any
+ reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in
+ which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be
+ reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
+ hyperlink to a resource that includes the required
+ information.
+
+ 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
+ information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent
+ reasonably practicable.
+
+ 4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's
+ License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted
+ Material from complying with this Public License.
+
+
+Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights.
+
+Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that
+apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:
+
+ a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right
+ to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial
+ portion of the contents of the database;
+
+ b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database
+ contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database
+ Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database
+ Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and
+
+ c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share
+ all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.
+
+For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not
+replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed
+Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.
+
+
+Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.
+
+ a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE
+ EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS
+ AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF
+ ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS,
+ IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
+ WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
+ PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS,
+ ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT
+ KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT
+ ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
+
+ b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE
+ TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
+ NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT,
+ INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES,
+ COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR
+ USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN
+ ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR
+ DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR
+ IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
+
+ c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided
+ above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent
+ possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and
+ waiver of all liability.
+
+
+Section 6 -- Term and Termination.
+
+ a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and
+ Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with
+ this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License
+ terminate automatically.
+
+ b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under
+ Section 6(a), it reinstates:
+
+ 1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided
+ it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the
+ violation; or
+
+ 2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.
+
+ For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any
+ right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations
+ of this Public License.
+
+ c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the
+ Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop
+ distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so
+ will not terminate this Public License.
+
+ d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public
+ License.
+
+
+Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions.
+
+ a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different
+ terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
+
+ b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the
+ Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and
+ independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
+
+
+Section 8 -- Interpretation.
+
+ a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and
+ shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose
+ conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully
+ be made without permission under this Public License.
+
+ b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is
+ deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the
+ minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision
+ cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License
+ without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and
+ conditions.
+
+ c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no
+ failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the
+ Licensor.
+
+ d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted
+ as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities
+ that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal
+ processes of any jurisdiction or authority.
+
+
+=======================================================================
+
+Creative Commons is not a party to its public
+licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of
+its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances
+will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons
+public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public
+Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that
+material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as
+otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at
+creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the
+use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo
+of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including,
+without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications
+to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements,
+understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For
+the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the
+public licenses.
+
+Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.
+
--
2.28.0
Am 24.11.20 um 10:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
>> which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
>> attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
>> CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
>> afaics better than using MIT for text files.
>
> And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
> me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
Argh, sorry, slipped through. You can find it here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2f314e58cb14c1579f843f8c72bdb4bbb83ac20a.1606137108.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
FWIW, here it is for easy access (just sent with thunderbird instead of
git send-mail, hopefully should be enough for this):
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/3] docs: Add a new text describing how to report bugs
Add a mostly finished document describing how to report issues with the
Linux kernel to its developers. It is designed to be a lot more straight
forward and easier to follow than the current text about this
(Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst); at the same time the new
text should be more helpful for people unfamiliar with the topic, as it
provides a lot more details, too.
The main work on the text is done, but some polishing is still needed.
The text also needs to be reviewed by more people and a few issues still
might need some discussion. To make these tasks easier, it was decided
([1]) to add this document to the kernel sources in parallel to the
existing text; the latter will be removed once this text is considered
good enough(tm).
This document is quite long and provides a lot of details, but was
carefully crafted to make sure it's can also serve people that are in a
hurry. That's mainly achieved by having a TDLR and a step-by-step guide,
which should be good enough for quite a lot of people. Everybody that
wants or need more explanations can find them in a reference section,
which describes all the needed steps in detail.
Thanks to this structure the text can work for kernel developers that
just need to look something up, experienced FLOSS contributors that are
unfamiliar with the kernel's bug reporting workflow, and users reporting
something upstream for the first time. The text is thus a bit like the
kernel itself, which works well for embedded machines, a typical desktop
PC, cloud servers, and HPC.
The document was written in the hope it will improve the quality of the
bug reports, especially those that come from people unfamiliar with how
Linux kernel development works. Sadly quite a few reports from this
group are currently of poor quality and/or get submitted to the wrong
place. Part of the problem is the old reporting-bugs document, as it
makes its essence hard to grasp; it's and also inaccurate and slightly
outdated in a few spots. Due to this quite a few valid reports are
ignored in the end, which is annoying for those that compiled them and
bad for the kernel's quality.
The document near the top points out that it's still unfinished, but
nevertheless ready for consumption. Those few areas in the text that
might need some further discussion contain a note pointing this out.
Besides lack of review from core developers there is only one major
issue left: the section 'Decode failure message' is known to be
outdated: it's waiting for someone familiar with the topic to write
something up or give at least provide some hints and pointers what to
write there.
The new document is dual-licensed under GPL-2.0+ or CC-BY-4.0. The
latter is way more liberal and makes it attractive to use this text as a
base when writing about this topic on websites or in books. This
hopefully increases the chances that such texts are accurate and stick
to official way of doing things.
[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst | 1 +
.../admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst | 1626 +++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 1627 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
index 4e0c4ae44acd..c52c1882bd04 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ problems and bugs in particular.
.. toctree::
:maxdepth: 1
+ reporting-issues
reporting-bugs
security-bugs
bug-hunting
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1d662aeb5b5c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1626 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0)
+..
+ If you want to distribute this text under CC-BY-4.0 only, please use 'The
+ Linux kernel developers' for author attribution and link this as source:
+ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst
+
+.. important::
+
+ This document is being prepared to replace
+ 'Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst'. The main work is done and
+ you are already free to follow its instructions when reporting issues to the
+ Linux kernel developers. But keep in mind, below text still needs a few
+ finishing touches and review. It was merged to the Linux kernel sources at
+ this stage to make this process easier and increase the text's visibility.
+
+ Any improvements for the text or other feedback is thus very much welcome.
+ Please send it to 'Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>' and 'Jonathan
+ Corbet <[email protected]>', ideally with 'Linux kernel mailing list (LKML)
+ <[email protected]>' and the 'Linux Kernel Documentation List
+ <[email protected]>' in CC.
+
+ Areas in the text that still need work or discussion contain a hint like this
+ which point out the remaining issues; all of them start with the word "FIXME"
+ to make them easy to find.
+
+
+Reporting issues
+++++++++++++++++
+
+
+The short guide (aka TL;DR)
+===========================
+
+If you're facing multiple issues with the Linux kernel at once, report each
+separately to its developers. Try your best guess which kernel part might be
+causing the issue. Check the :ref:`MAINTAINERS <maintainers>` file for how its
+developers expect to be told about issues. Note, it's rarely
+`bugzilla.kernel.org <https://bugzilla.kernel.org/>`_, as in almost all cases
+the report needs to be sent by email!
+
+Check the destination thoroughly for existing reports; also search the LKML
+archives and the web. Join existing discussion if you find matches. If you
+don't find any, install `the latest Linux mainline kernel
+<https://kernel.org/>`_. Make sure it's vanilla, thus is not patched or using
+add-on kernel modules. Also ensure the kernel is running in a healthy
+environment and is not already tainted before the issue occurs.
+
+If you can reproduce your issue with the mainline kernel, send a report to the
+destination you determined earlier. Make sure it includes all relevant
+information, which in case of a regression should mention the change that's
+causing it which can often can be found with a bisection. Also ensure the
+report reaches all people that need to know about it, for example the security
+team, the stable maintainers or the developers of the patch that causes a
+regression. Once the report is out, answer any questions that might be raised
+and help where you can. That includes keeping the ball rolling: every time a
+new rc1 mainline kernel is released, check if the issue is still happening
+there and attach a status update to your initial report.
+
+If you can not reproduce the issue with the mainline kernel, consider sticking
+with it; if you'd like to use an older version line and want to see it fixed
+there, first make sure it's still supported. Install its latest release as
+vanilla kernel. If you cannot reproduce the issue there, try to find the commit
+that fixed it in mainline or any discussion preceding it: those will often
+mention if backporting is planed or considered too complex. If backporting was
+not discussed, ask if it's in the cards. In case you don't find any commits or
+a preceding discussion, see the Linux-stable mailing list archives for existing
+reports, as it might be a regression specific to the version line. If it is,
+report it like you would report a problem in mainline (including the
+bisection).
+
+If you reached this point without a solution, ask for advice one the
+subsystem's mailing list.
+
+
+Step-by-step guide how to report issues to the kernel maintainers
+=================================================================
+
+The above TL;DR outlines roughly how to report issues to the Linux kernel
+developers. It might be all that's needed for people already familiar with
+reporting issues to Free/Libre & Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. For
+everyone else there is this section. It is more detailed and uses a
+step-by-step approach. It still tries to be brief for readability and leaves
+out a lot of details; those are described below the step-by-step guide in a
+reference section, which explains each of the steps in more detail.
+
+Note: this section covers a few more aspects than the TL;DR and does things in
+a slightly different order. That's in your interest, to make sure you notice
+early if an issue that looks like a Linux kernel problem is actually caused by
+something else. These steps thus help to ensure the time you invest in this
+process won't feel wasted in the end:
+
+ * Stop reading this document and report the problem to your vendor instead,
+ unless you are running the latest mainline kernel already or are willing to
+ install it. This kernel must not be modified or enhanced in any way, and
+ thus be considered 'vanilla'.
+
+ * See if the issue you are dealing with qualifies as regression, security
+ issue, or a really severe problem: those are 'issues of high priority' that
+ need special handling in some steps that are about to follow.
+
+ * Check if your kernel was 'tainted' when the issue occurred, as the event
+ that made the kernel set this flag might be causing the issue you face.
+
+ * Locate the driver or kernel subsystem that seems to be causing the issue.
+ Find out how and where its developers expect reports. Note: most of the
+ time this won't be bugzilla.kernel.org, as issues typically need to be sent
+ by mail to a maintainer and a public mailing list.
+
+ * Search the archives of the bug tracker or mailing list in question
+ thoroughly for reports that might match your issue. Also check if you find
+ something with your favorite internet search engine or in the Linux Kernel
+ Mailing List (LKML) archives. If you find anything, join the discussion
+ instead of sending a new report.
+
+ * Create a fresh backup and put system repair and restore tools at hand.
+
+ * Ensure your system does not enhance its kernels by building additional
+ kernel modules on-the-fly, which solutions like DKMS might be doing locally
+ without your knowledge.
+
+ * Make sure it's not the kernel's surroundings that are causing the issue
+ you face.
+
+ * Write down coarsely how to reproduce the issue. If you deal with multiple
+ issues at once, create separate notes for each of them and make sure they
+ work independently on a freshly booted system. That's needed, as each issue
+ needs to get reported to the kernel developers separately, unless they are
+ strongly entangled.
+
+After these preparations you'll now enter the main part:
+
+ * Install the latest Linux mainline kernel: that's where all issues get
+ fixed first, because it's the version line the kernel developers mainly
+ care about. Testing and reporting with the latest Linux stable kernel can
+ be an acceptable alternative in some situations, for example during the
+ merge window; but during that period you might want to suspend your efforts
+ till its end anyway.
+
+ * Ensure the kernel you just installed does not 'taint' itself when
+ running.
+
+ * Reproduce the issue with the kernel you just installed. If it doesn't show
+ up there, head over to the instructions for issues only happening with
+ stable and longterm kernels.
+
+ * Optimize your notes: try to find and write the most straightforward way to
+ reproduce your issue. Make sure the end result has all the important
+ details, and at the same time is easy to read and understand for others
+ that hear about it for the first time. And if you learned something in this
+ process, consider searching again for existing reports about the issue.
+
+ * If the failure includes a stack dump, like an Oops does, consider decoding
+ it to find the offending line of code.
+
+ * If your problem is a regression, try to narrow down when the issue was
+ introduced as much as possible.
+
+ * Start to compile the report by writing a detailed description about the
+ issue. Always mention a few things: the latest kernel version you installed
+ for reproducing, the Linux Distribution used, and your notes on how to
+ reproduce the issue. Ideally, make the kernel's build configuration
+ (.config) and the output from ``dmesg`` available somewhere on the net and
+ link to it. Include or upload all other information that might be relevant,
+ like the output/screenshot of an Oops or the output from ``lspci``. Once
+ you wrote this main part, insert a normal length paragraph on top of it
+ outlining the issue and the impact quickly. On top of this add one sentence
+ that briefly describes the problem and gets people to read on. Now give the
+ thing a descriptive title or subject that yet again is shorter. Then you're
+ ready to send or file the report like the MAINTAINERS file told you, unless
+ you are dealing with one of those 'issues of high priority': they need
+ special care which is explained in 'Special handling for high priority
+ issues' below.
+
+ * Wait for reactions and keep the thing rolling until you can accept the
+ outcome in one way or the other. Thus react publicly and in a timely manner
+ to any inquiries. Test proposed fixes. Do proactive testing: retest with at
+ least every first release candidate (RC) of a new mainline version and
+ report your results. Send friendly reminders if things stall. And try to
+ help yourself, if you don't get any help or if it's unsatisfying.
+
+
+Reporting issues only occurring in older kernel version lines
+-------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This section is for you, if you tried the latest mainline kernel as outlined
+above, but failed to reproduce your issue there; at the same time you want to
+see the issue fixed in older version lines or a vendor kernel that's regularly
+rebased on new stable or longterm releases. If that case follow these steps:
+
+ * Prepare yourself for the possibility that going through the next few steps
+ might not get the issue solved in older releases: the fix might be too big
+ or risky to get backported there.
+
+ * Check if the kernel developers still maintain the Linux kernel version
+ line you care about: go to the front page of kernel.org and make sure it
+ mentions the latest release of the particular version line without an
+ '[EOL]' tag.
+
+ * Check the archives of the Linux stable mailing list for existing reports.
+
+ * Install the latest release from the particular version line as a vanilla
+ kernel. Ensure this kernel is not tainted and still shows the problem, as
+ the issue might have already been fixed there.
+
+ * Search the Linux kernel version control system for the change that fixed
+ the issue in mainline, as its commit message might tell you if the fix is
+ scheduled for backporting already. If you don't find anything that way,
+ search the appropriate mailing lists for posts that discuss such an issue
+ or peer-review possible fixes; then check the discussions if the fix was
+ deemed unsuitable for backporting. If backporting was not considered at
+ all, join the newest discussion, asking if it's in the cards.
+
+ * Check if you're dealing with a regression that was never present in
+ mainline by installing the first release of the version line you care
+ about. If the issue doesn't show up with it, you basically need to report
+ the issue with this version like you would report a problem with mainline
+ (see above). This ideally includes a bisection followed by a search for
+ existing reports on the net; with the help of the subject and the two
+ relevant commit-ids. If that doesn't turn up anything, write the report; CC
+ or forward the report to the stable maintainers, the stable mailing list,
+ and those who authored the change. Include the shortened commit-id if you
+ found the change that causes it.
+
+ * One of the former steps should lead to a solution. If that doesn't work
+ out, ask the maintainers for the subsystem that seems to be causing the
+ issue for advice; CC the mailing list for the particular subsystem as well
+ as the stable mailing list.
+
+
+Reference section: Reporting issues to the kernel maintainers
+=============================================================
+
+The detailed guides above outline all the major steps in brief fashion, which
+should be enough for most people. But sometimes there are situations where even
+experienced users might wonder how to actually do one of those steps. That's
+what this section is for, as it will provide a lot more details on each of the
+above steps. Consider this as reference documentation: it's possible to read it
+from top to bottom. But it's mainly meant to skim over and a place to look up
+details how to actually perform those steps.
+
+A few words of general advice before digging into the details:
+
+ * The Linux kernel developers are well aware this process is complicated and
+ demands more than other FLOSS projects. We'd love to make it simpler. But
+ that would require work in various places as well as some infrastructure,
+ which would need constant maintenance; nobody has stepped up to do that
+ work, so that's just how things are for now.
+
+ * A warranty or support contract with some vendor doesn't entitle you to
+ request fixes from developers in the upstream Linux kernel community: such
+ contracts are completely outside the scope of the Linux kernel, its
+ development community, and this document. That's why you can't demand
+ anything such a contract guarantees in this context, not even if the
+ developer handling the issue works for the vendor in question. If you want
+ to claim your rights, use the vendor's support channel instead. When doing
+ so, you might want to mention you'd like to see the issue fixed in the
+ upstream Linux kernel; motivate them by saying it's the only way to ensure
+ the fix in the end will get incorporated in all Linux distributions.
+
+ * If you never reported an issue to a FLOSS project before you should consider
+ reading `How to Report Bugs Effectively
+ <https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>`_, `How To Ask
+ Questions The Smart Way
+ <http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>`_, and `How to ask good
+ questions <https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/>`_.
+
+With that off the table, find below the details on how to properly report
+issues to the Linux kernel developers.
+
+
+Make sure you're using the upstream Linux kernel
+------------------------------------------------
+
+ *Stop reading this document and report the problem to your vendor instead,
+ unless you are running the latest mainline kernel already or are willing to
+ install it. This kernel must not be modified or enhanced in any way, and
+ thus be considered 'vanilla'.*
+
+Like most programmers, Linux kernel developers don't like to spend time dealing
+with reports for issues that don't even happen with the source code they
+maintain: it's just a waste everybody's time, yours included. That's why you
+later will have to test your issue with the latest 'vanilla' kernel: a kernel
+that was build using the Linux sources taken straight from `kernel.org
+<https://kernel.org/>`_ and not modified or enhanced in any way.
+
+Almost all kernels used in devices (Computers, Laptops, Smartphones, Routers,
+…) and most kernels shipped by Linux distributors are ancient from the point of
+kernel development and heavily modified. They thus do not qualify for reporting
+an issue to the Linux kernel developers: the issue you face with such a kernel
+might be fixed already or caused by the changes or additions, even if they look
+small or totally unrelated. That's why issues with such kernels need to be
+reported to the vendor that distributed it. Its developers should look into the
+report and, in case it turns out to be an upstream issue, fix it directly
+upstream or report it there. In practice that sometimes does not work out. If
+that the case, you might want to circumvent the vendor by installing the latest
+mainline kernel yourself and reporting the issue as outlined in this document;
+just make sure to use really fresh kernel (see below).
+
+
+.. note::
+
+ FIXME: Should we accept reports for issues with kernel images that are pretty
+ close to vanilla? But when are they close enough and how to put that line in
+ words? Maybe something like this?
+
+ *Note: Some Linux kernel developers accept reports from vendor kernels that
+ are known to be close to upstream. That for example is often the case for
+ the kernels that Debian GNU/Linux Sid or Fedora Rawhide ship, which are
+ normally following mainline closely and carry only a few patches. So a
+ report with one of these might be accepted by the developers that need to
+ handle it. But if they do, depends heavily on the individual developers and
+ the issue at hand. That's why installing a mainline vanilla kernel is the
+ safe bet.*
+
+ *Arch Linux, other Fedora releases, and openSUSE Tumbleweed often use quite
+ recent stable kernels that are pretty close to upstream, too. Some
+ developers accept bugs from them as well. But note that you normally should
+ avoid stable kernels for reporting issues and use a mainline kernel instead
+ (see below).*
+
+ Are there any other major Linux distributions that should be mentioned here?
+
+
+Issue of high priority?
+-----------------------
+
+ *See if the issue you are dealing with qualifies as regression, security
+ issue, or a really severe problem: those are 'issues of high priority' that
+ need special handling in some steps that are about to follow.*
+
+Linus Torvalds and the leading Linux kernel developers want to see some issues
+fixed as soon as possible, hence there are 'issues of high priority' that get
+handled slightly differently in the reporting process. Three type of cases
+qualify: regressions, security issues, and really severe problems.
+
+You deal with a 'regression' if something that worked with an older version of
+the Linux kernel does not work with a newer one or somehow works worse with it.
+It thus is a regression when a WiFi driver that did a fine job with Linux 5.7
+somehow misbehaves with 5.8 or doesn't work at all. It's also a regression if
+an application shows erratic behavior with a newer kernel, which might happen
+due to incompatible changes in the interface between the kernel and the
+userland (like procfs and sysfs). Significantly reduced performance or
+increased power consumption also qualify as regression. But keep in mind: the
+new kernel needs to be built with a configuration that is similar to the one
+from the old kernel (see below how to achieve that). That's because the kernel
+developers sometimes can not avoid incompatibilities when implementing new
+features; but to avoid regressions such features have to be enabled explicitly
+during build time configuration.
+
+What qualifies as security issue is left to your judgment. Consider reading
+'Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst' before proceeding, as it
+provides additional details how to best handle security issues.
+
+An issue is a 'really severe problem' when something totally unacceptably bad
+happens. That's for example the case when a Linux kernel corrupts the data it's
+handling or damages hardware it's running on. You're also dealing with a severe
+issue when the kernel suddenly stops working with an error message ('kernel
+panic') or without any farewell note at all. Note: do not confuse a 'panic' (a
+fatal error where the kernel stop itself) with a 'Oops' (a recoverable error),
+as the kernel remains running after the latter.
+
+
+Check 'taint' flag
+------------------
+
+ *Check if your kernel was 'tainted' when the issue occurred, as the event
+ that made the kernel set this flag might be causing the issue you face.*
+
+The kernel marks itself with a 'taint' flag when something happens that might
+lead to follow-up errors that look totally unrelated. The issue you face might
+be such an error if your kernel is tainted. That's why it's in your interest to
+rule this out early before investing more time into this process. This is the
+only reason why this step is here, as this process later will tell you to
+install the latest mainline kernel; you will need to check the taint flag again
+then, as that's when it matters because it's the kernel the report will focus
+on.
+
+On a running system is easy to check if the kernel tainted itself: if ``cat
+/proc/sys/kernel/tainted`` returns '0' then the kernel is not tainted and
+everything is fine. Checking that file is impossible in some situations; that's
+why the kernel also mentions the taint status when it reports an internal
+problem (a 'kernel bug'), a recoverable error (a 'kernel Oops') or a
+non-recoverable error before halting operation (a 'kernel panic'). Look near
+the top of the error messages printed when one of these occurs and search for a
+line starting with 'CPU:'. It should end with 'Not tainted' if the kernel was
+not tainted when it noticed the problem; it was tainted if you see 'Tainted:'
+followed by a few spaces and some letters.
+
+If your kernel is tainted, study 'Documentation/admin-guide/tainted-kernels.rst'
+to find out why. Try to eliminate the reason. Often it's caused by one these
+three things:
+
+ 1. A recoverable error (a 'kernel Oops') occurred and the kernel tainted
+ itself, as the kernel knows it might misbehave in strange ways after that
+ point. In that case check your kernel or system log and look for a section
+ that starts with this::
+
+ Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
+
+ That's the first Oops since boot-up, as the '#1' between the brackets shows.
+ Every Oops and any other problem that happens after that point might be a
+ follow-up problem to that first Oops, even if both look totally unrelated.
+ Rule this out by getting rid of the cause for the first Oops and reproducing
+ the issue afterwards. Sometimes simply restarting will be enough, sometimes
+ a change to the configuration followed by a reboot can eliminate the Oops.
+ But don't invest too much time into this at this point of the process, as
+ the cause for the Oops might already be fixed in the newer Linux kernel
+ version you are going to install later in this process.
+
+ 2. Your system uses a software that installs its own kernel modules, for
+ example Nvidia's proprietary graphics driver or VirtualBox. The kernel
+ taints itself when it loads such module from external sources (even if
+ they are Open Source): they sometimes cause errors in unrelated kernel
+ areas and thus might be causing the issue you face. You therefore have to
+ prevent those modules from loading when you want to report an issue to the
+ Linux kernel developers. Most of the time the easiest way to do that is:
+ temporarily uninstall such software including any modules they might have
+ installed. Afterwards reboot.
+
+ 3. The kernel also taints itself when it's loading a module that resides in
+ the staging tree of the Linux kernel source. That's a special area for
+ code (mostly drivers) that does not yet fulfill the normal Linux kernel
+ quality standards. When you report an issue with such a module it's
+ obviously okay if the kernel is tainted; just make sure the module in
+ question is the only reason for the taint. If the issue happens in an
+ unrelated area reboot and temporarily block the module from being loaded
+ by specifying ``foo.blacklist=1`` as kernel parameter (replace 'foo' with
+ the name of the module in question).
+
+
+Locate kernel area that causes the issue
+----------------------------------------
+
+ *Locate the driver or kernel subsystem that seems to be causing the issue.
+ Find out how and where its developers expect reports. Note: most of the
+ time this won't be bugzilla.kernel.org, as issues typically need to be sent
+ by mail to a maintainer and a public mailing list.*
+
+It's crucial to send your report to the right people, as the Linux kernel is a
+big project and most of its developers are only familiar with a small subset of
+it. Quite a few programmers for example only care for just one driver, for
+example one for a WiFi chip; its developer likely will only have small or no
+knowledge about the internals of remote or unrelated "subsystems", like the TCP
+stack, the PCIe/PCI subsystem, memory management or file systems.
+
+Problem is: the Linux kernel lacks a central bug tracker where you can simply
+file your issue and make it reach the developers that need to know about it.
+That's why you have to find the right place and way to report issues yourself.
+You can do that with the help of a script (see below), but it mainly targets
+kernel developers and experts. For everybody else the MAINTAINERS file is the
+better place.
+
+How to read the MAINTAINERS file
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+To illustrate how to use the :ref:`MAINTAINERS <maintainers>` file, lets assume
+the WiFi in your Laptop suddenly misbehaves after updating the kernel. In that
+case it's likely an issue in the WiFi driver. Obviously it could also be some
+code it builds upon, but unless you suspect something like that stick to the
+driver. If it's really something else, the driver's developers will get the
+right people involved.
+
+Sadly, there is no way to check which code is driving a particular hardware
+component that is both universal and easy.
+
+In case of a problem with the WiFi driver you for example might want to look at
+the output of ``lspci -k``, as it lists devices on the PCI/PCIe bus and the
+kernel module driving it::
+
+ [user@something ~]$ lspci -k
+ [...]
+ 3a:00.0 Network controller: Qualcomm Atheros QCA6174 802.11ac Wireless Network Adapter (rev 32)
+ Subsystem: Bigfoot Networks, Inc. Device 1535
+ Kernel driver in use: ath10k_pci
+ Kernel modules: ath10k_pci
+ [...]
+
+But this approach won't work if your WiFi chip is connected over USB or some
+other internal bus. In those cases you might want to check your WiFi manager or
+the output of ``ip link``. Look for the name of the problematic network
+interface, which might be something like 'wlp58s0'. This name can be used like
+this to find the module driving it::
+
+ [user@something ~]$ realpath --relative-to=/sys/module/ /sys/class/net/wlp58s0/device/driver/module
+ ath10k_pci
+
+In case tricks like these don't bring you any further, try to search the
+internet on how to narrow down the driver or subsystem in question. And if you
+are unsure which it is: just try your best guess, somebody will help you if you
+guessed poorly.
+
+Once you know the driver or subsystem, you want to search for it in the
+MAINTAINERS file. In the case of 'ath10k_pci' you won't find anything, as the
+name is too specific. Sometimes you will need to search on the net for help;
+but before doing so, try a somewhat shorted or modified name when searching the
+MAINTAINERS file, as then you might find something like this::
+
+ QUALCOMM ATHEROS ATH10K WIRELESS DRIVER
+ Mail: A. Some Human <[email protected]>
+ Mailing list: [email protected]
+ Status: Supported
+ Web-page: https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/Drivers/ath10k
+ SCM: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git
+ Files: drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/
+
+Note: the line description will be abbreviations, if you read the plain
+MAINTAINERS file found in the root of the Linux source tree. 'Mail:' for
+example will be 'M:', 'Mailing list:' will be 'L', and 'Status:' will be 'S:'.
+A section near the top of the file explains these and other abbreviations.
+
+First look at the line 'Status'. Ideally it should be 'Supported' or
+'Maintained'. If it states 'Obsolete' then you are using some outdated approach
+that was replaced by a newer solution you need to switch to. Sometimes the code
+only has someone who provides 'Odd Fixes' when feeling motivated. And with
+'Orphan' you are totally out of luck, as nobody takes care of the code anymore.
+That only leaves these options: arrange yourself to live with the issue, fix it
+yourself, or find a programmer somewhere willing to fix it.
+
+After checking the status, look for a line starting with 'bugs:': it will tell
+you where to find a subsystem specific bug tracker to file your issue. The
+example above does not have such a line. That is the case for most sections, as
+Linux kernel development is completely driven by mail. Very few subsystems use
+a bug tracker, and only some of those rely on bugzilla.kernel.org.
+
+
+.. note::
+
+ FIXME: The old text took a totally different approach to bugzilla.kernel.org,
+ as it mentions it as the place to file issue for people that don't known how
+ to contact the appropriate people. The new one mentions it rarely; and when
+ it does like here, it warns users that it's often the wrong place to go.
+
+ This approach was chosen as the main author of this document noticed quite a
+ few users (or even a lot?) get no reply to the bugs they file in bugzilla.
+ That's kind of expected, as quite a few (many? most?) of the maintainers
+ don't even get notified when reports for their subsystem get filed there. And
+ not getting a single reply to report is something that is just annoying for
+ users and might make them angry. Improving bugzilla.k.o would be an option,
+ but on the kernel and maintainers summit 2017 it was agreed on to first go
+ this route (sorry it took so long): it's easier to achieve and less
+ controversial, as putting additional burden on already overworked maintainers
+ is unlikely to get well received.
+
+
+In this and many other cases you thus have to look for lines starting with
+'Mail:' instead. Those mention the name and the email addresses for the
+maintainers of the particular code. Also look for a line starting with 'Mailing
+list:', which tells you the public mailing list where the code is developed.
+Your report later needs to go by mail to those addresses. Additionally, for all
+issue reports sent by email, make sure to add the Linux Kernel Mailing List
+(LKML) <[email protected]> to CC. Don't omit either of the mailing
+lists when sending your issue report by mail later! Maintainers are busy people
+and might leave some work for other developers on the subsystem specific list;
+and LKML is important to have one place where all issue reports can be found.
+
+
+.. note::
+
+ FIXME: Above section tells users to always CC LKML. These days it's a kind of
+ "catch-all" list anyway, which nearly nobody seems to follow closely. So it
+ seems appropriate to go "all in" and make people send their reports here,
+ too, as everything (reports, fixes, ...) then can be found in one place (at
+ least for all reports sent by mail and all subsystems that CC LKML).
+
+ Related: Should we create mailing list like '[email protected]'
+ and tell users above to always CC it when reporting issues? Then there would
+ be one central place reporters could search for existing reports (at least
+ for issues reported by mail) without getting regular LKML traffic mixed into
+ the results.
+
+
+Finding the maintainers with the help of a script
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+For people that have the Linux sources at hand there is a second option to find
+the proper place to report: the script 'scripts/get_maintainer.pl' which tries
+to find all people to contact. It queries the MAINTAINERS file and needs to be
+called with a path to the source code in question. For drivers compiled as
+module if often can be found with a command like this::
+
+ $ modinfo ath10k_pci | grep filename | sed 's!/lib/modules/.*/kernel/!!; s!filename:!!; s!\.ko\(\|\.xz\)!!'
+ drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/ath10k_pci.ko
+
+Pass parts of this to the script::
+
+ $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k*
+ Some Human <[email protected]> (supporter:QUALCOMM ATHEROS ATH10K WIRELESS DRIVER)
+ Another S. Human <[email protected]> (maintainer:NETWORKING DRIVERS)
+ [email protected] (open list:QUALCOMM ATHEROS ATH10K WIRELESS DRIVER)
+ [email protected] (open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS (WIRELESS))
+ [email protected] (open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS)
+ [email protected] (open list)
+
+Don't sent your report to all of them. Send it to the maintainers, which the
+script calls "supporter:"; additionally CC the most specific mailing list for
+the code as well as the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML). In this case you thus
+would need to send the report to 'Some Human <[email protected]>' with
+'[email protected]' and '[email protected]' in CC.
+
+Note: in case you cloned the Linux sources with git you might want to call
+``get_maintainer.pl`` a second time with ``--git``. The script then will look
+at the commit history to find which people recently worked on the code in
+question, as they might be able to help. But use these results with care, as it
+can easily send you in a wrong direction. That for example happens quickly in
+areas rarely changed (like old or unmaintained drivers): sometimes such code is
+modified during tree-wide cleanups by developers that do not care about the
+particular driver at all.
+
+
+Search for existing reports
+---------------------------
+
+ *Search the archives of the bug tracker or mailing list in question
+ thoroughly for reports that might match your issue. Also check if you find
+ something with your favorite internet search engine or in the Linux Kernel
+ Mailing List (LKML) archives. If you find anything, join the discussion
+ instead of sending a new report.*
+
+Reporting an issue that someone else already brought forward is often a waste
+of time for everyone involved, especially you as the reporter. So it's in your
+own interest to thoroughly check if somebody reported the issue already. Thus
+do not hurry with this step of the reporting process. Spending 30 to 60 minutes
+or even more time can save you and others quite a lot of time and trouble.
+
+The best place to search is the bug tracker or the mailing list where your
+report needs to be filed. You'll find quite a few of those lists on
+`lore.kernel.org <https://lore.kernel.org/>`_, but some are hosted in
+different places. That for example is the case for the ath10k WiFi driver used
+as example in the previous step. But you'll often find the archives for these
+lists easily on the net. Searching for 'archive [email protected]' for
+example will quickly lead you to the `Info page for the ath10k mailing list
+<https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k>`_, which at the top links
+to its `list archives <https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/>`_.
+
+Sadly this and quite a few other lists miss a way to search the archives. In
+those cases use a regular internet search engine and add something like
+'site:lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/' to your search terms, which limits
+the results to the archives at that URL.
+
+Additionally, search the internet and the `Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML)
+archives <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/>`_, as maybe the real culprit might be
+in some other subsystem. Searching in `bugzilla.kernel.org
+<https://bugzilla.kernel.org/>`_ might also be a good idea, but if you find
+anything there keep in mind: most subsystems expect reports in different
+places, hence those you find there might have not even reached the people
+responsible for the subsystem in question. Nevertheless, the data there might
+provide valuable insights.
+
+If you get flooded with results consider telling your search engine to limit
+search timeframe to the past month or year. And wherever you search, make sure
+to use good search terms; vary them a few times, too. While doing so try to
+look at the issue from the perspective of someone else: that will help you to
+come up with other words to use as search terms. Also make sure not to use too
+many search terms at once. Remember to search with and without information like
+the name of the kernel driver or the name of the affected hardware component.
+But its exact brand name (say 'ASUS Red Devil Radeon RX 5700 XT Gaming OC')
+often is not much helpful, as it is too specific. Instead try search terms like
+the model line (Radeon 5700 or Radeon 5000) and the code name of the main chip
+('Navi' or 'Navi10') with and without its manufacturer ('AMD').
+
+In case you find an existing report about your issue, join the discussion, as
+you might be able to provide valuable additional information. That can be
+important even when a fix is prepared or in its final stages already, as
+developers might look for people that can provide additional information or
+test a proposed fix. Jump to the section 'Duties after the report went out' for
+details on how to get properly involved.
+
+
+Prepare for emergencies
+-----------------------
+
+ *Create a fresh backup and put system repair and restore tools at hand.*
+
+Reminder, you are dealing with computers, which sometimes do unexpected things,
+especially if you fiddle with crucial parts like the kernel of its operating
+system. That's what you are about to do in this process. Thus, make sure to
+create a fresh backup; also ensure you have all tools at hand to repair or
+reinstall the operating system as well as everything you need to restore the
+backup.
+
+
+Make sure your kernel doesn't get enhanced
+------------------------------------------
+
+ *Ensure your system does not enhance its kernels by building additional
+ kernel modules on-the-fly, which solutions like DKMS might be doing locally
+ without your knowledge.*
+
+Your kernel must be 'vanilla' when reporting an issue, but stops being pure as
+soon as it loads a kernel module not built from the sources used to compile the
+kernel image itself. That's why you need to ensure your Linux kernel stays
+vanilla by removing or disabling mechanisms like akmods and DKMS: those might
+build additional kernel modules automatically, for example when your boot into
+a newly installed Linux kernel the first time. Reboot after removing them and
+any modules they installed.
+
+Note, you might not be aware that your system is using one of these solutions:
+they often get set up silently when you install Nvidia's proprietary graphics
+driver, VirtualBox, or other software that requires a some support from a
+module not part of the Linux kernel. That why your might need to uninstall the
+packages with such software to get rid of any 3rd party kernel module.
+
+
+Ensure a healthy environment
+----------------------------
+
+ *Make sure it's not the kernel's surroundings that are causing the issue
+ you face.*
+
+Problems that look a lot like a kernel issue are sometimes caused by build or
+runtime environment. It's hard to rule out that problem completely, but you
+should minimize it:
+
+ * Use proven tools when building your kernel, as bugs in the compiler or the
+ binutils can cause the resulting kernel to misbehave.
+
+ * Ensure your computer components run within their design specifications;
+ that's especially important for the main processor, the main memory, and the
+ motherboard. Therefore, stop undervolting or overclocking when facing a
+ potential kernel issue.
+
+ * Try to make sure it's not faulty hardware that is causing your issue. Bad
+ main memory for example can result in a multitude of issues that will
+ manifest itself in problems looking like kernel issues.
+
+ * If you're dealing with a filesystem issue, you might want to check the file
+ system in question with ``fsck``, as it might be damaged in a way that leads
+ to unexpected kernel behavior.
+
+ * When dealing with a regression, make sure it's not something else that
+ changed in parallel to updating the kernel. The problem for example might be
+ caused by other software that was updated at the same time. It can also
+ happen that a hardware component coincidentally just broke when you rebooted
+ into a new kernel for the first time. Updating the systems BIOS or changing
+ something in the BIOS Setup can also lead to problems that on look a lot
+ like a kernel regression.
+
+
+Document how to reproduce issue
+-------------------------------
+
+ *Write down coarsely how to reproduce the issue. If you deal with multiple
+ issues at once, create separate notes for each of them and make sure they
+ work independently on a freshly booted system. That's needed, as each issue
+ needs to get reported to the kernel developers separately, unless they are
+ strongly entangled.*
+
+If you deal with multiple issues at once, you'll have to report each of them
+separately, as they might be handled by different developers. Describing
+various issues in one report also makes it quite difficult for others to tear
+it apart. Hence, only combine issues in one report if they are very strongly
+entangled.
+
+Additionally, during the reporting process you will have to test if the issue
+happens with other kernel versions. Therefore, it will make your work easier if
+you know exactly how to reproduce an issue quickly on a freshly booted system.
+
+Note: it's often fruitless to report issues that only happened once, as they
+might be caused by a bit flip due to cosmic radiation. That's why you should
+try to rule that out by reproducing the issue before going further. Feel free
+to ignore this advice if you are experienced enough to tell a one-time error
+due to faulty hardware apart from a kernel issue that rarely happens and thus
+is hard to reproduce.
+
+
+Install a fresh kernel for testing
+----------------------------------
+
+ *Install the latest Linux mainline kernel: that's where all issues get
+ fixed first, because it's the version line the kernel developers mainly
+ care about. Testing and reporting with the latest Linux stable kernel can
+ be an acceptable alternative in some situations, for example during the
+ merge window; but during that period you might want to suspend your efforts
+ till its end anyway.*
+
+Reporting an issue to the Linux kernel developers they fixed weeks or months
+ago is annoying for them and wasting their and your time. That's why it's in
+everybody's interest to check if the issue occurs with the latest codebase
+before reporting it.
+
+In the scope of the Linux kernel the term 'latest' means: a kernel version
+recently created from the main line of development, as this 'mainline' tree is
+where developers first apply fixes; only after that are they are allowed to get
+backported to older, still supported version lines called 'stable' and
+'longterm' kernels. That's why you should check a recent mainline kernel, even
+if you deal with an issue you only want to see fixed in an older version line.
+Another reason: some fixes are only applied to mainline or recent version
+lines, as it's too hard or risky to backport them to older versions. If that
+the case, reporting the issue again is unlikely to change anything.
+
+Longterm kernels (sometimes called "LTS kernels") are therefore unsuitable for
+testing; they simply are too distant from current development. Even the latest
+Linux 'stable' kernel is a significant bit behind and thus better avoided. At
+least most of the time, as sometimes a stable kernel can the best choice; but
+in those situations you might want to wait a few days anyway:
+
+Choosing between mainline, stable and waiting
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Head over to `kernel.org <https://kernel.org/>`_ to decide which version to
+use. Ignore the big yellow button that says 'Latest release' and look a little
+lower for a table. At its top you'll see a line starting with 'mainline', which
+most of the time will point to a pre-release with a version number like
+'5.8-rc2'. If that's the case, you'll want to use this mainline kernel for
+testing. Do not let that 'rc' scare you, these 'development kernels' are pretty
+reliable — and you made a backup, as you were instructed above, didn't you?
+
+In about two out of every nine to ten weeks, 'mainline' might point you to a
+proper release with a version number like '5.7'. If that happens, consider
+suspending the reporting process until the first pre-release of the next
+version (5.8-rc1) shows up on kernel.org. That's because the Linux development
+cycle then is in its two-week long 'merge window'. The bulk of the changes and
+all intrusive ones get merged for the next release during this time. It's a bit
+more risky to use mainline during this period. Kernel developers are also often
+quite busy then and might have no spare time to deal with issue reports. It's
+also quite possible that one of the many changes applied during the merge
+window fixes the issue you face; that's why you soon would have to retest with
+a newer kernel version anyway, as outlined below in the section 'Duties after
+the report went out'.
+
+That's why it might make sense to wait till the merge window is over. But don't
+to that if you're dealing with something that shouldn't wait. In that case
+consider obtaining the latest mainline kernel via git (see below) or use the
+latest stable version offered on kernel.org. Using that is also acceptable in
+case mainline for some reason does currently not work for you. An in general:
+using it for reproducing the issue is also better than not reporting it issue
+at all.
+
+How to obtain a fresh Linux kernel
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+You can use pre-built or self-compiled kernel for testing; if you choose the
+latter approach, you can either obtain the source code using git or download it
+as tar archive.
+
+Using a pre-compiled kernel for testing is often the quickest, easiest, and
+safest way – especially is you are unfamiliar with the Linux kernel. But it
+needs to be a vanilla kernel, which can be hard to come buy. You are in luck if
+you are using a popular Linux distribution: for quite a few of them you'll find
+repositories on the net that contain packages with the latest mainline or
+stable kernels in vanilla fashion. It's totally okay to use these, just make
+sure from the repository's documentation they are really vanilla. And ensure
+the packages contain the latest versions as offered on kernel.org; they are
+likely unsuitable if the package is older than a week, as new mainline and
+stable kernels typically get released at least once a week. And be aware that
+you might need to get build your own kernel later anyway when it comes to
+helping test fixes, as described later in this document.
+
+Developers and experienced Linux users familiar with git are often best served
+by obtaining the latest Linux kernel sources straight from the `official
+development repository on kernel.org
+<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/>`_.
+Those are likely a bit ahead of the latest mainline pre-release. Don't worry
+about it: they are as reliable as a proper pre-release, unless the kernel's
+development cycle is currently in the middle of a merge window. But even then
+they are quite reliable.
+
+People unfamiliar with git are often best served by downloading the sources as
+tarball from `kernel.org <https://kernel.org/>`_.
+
+How to actually build a kernel isnot described here, as many websites explain
+the necessary steps already. If you are new to it, consider following one of
+those how-to's that suggest to use ``make localmodconfig``, as that tries to
+pick up the configuration of your current kernel and then tries to adjust it
+somewhat for your system. That does not make the resulting kernel any better,
+but quicker to compile.
+
+
+Check 'taint' flag
+------------------
+
+ *Ensure the kernel you just installed does not 'taint' itself when
+ running.*
+
+As outlined above in more detail already: the kernel sets a 'taint' flag when
+something happens that can lead to follow-up errors that look totally
+unrelated. That's why you need to check if the kernel you just installed does
+not set this flag. And if it does, you in almost all the cases needs to
+eliminate the reason for it before you reporting issues that occur with it. See
+the section above for details how to do that.
+
+
+Reproduce issue with the fresh kernel
+-------------------------------------
+
+ *Reproduce the issue with the kernel you just installed. If it doesn't show
+ up there, head over to the instructions for issues only happening with
+ stable and longterm kernels.*
+
+Check if the issue occurs with the fresh Linux kernel version you just
+installed. If it was fixed there already, consider sticking with this version
+line and abandoning your plan to report the issue. But keep in mind that other
+users might still be plagued by it, as long as it's not fixed in either stable
+and longterm version from kernel.org (and thus vendor kernels derived from
+those). If you prefer to use one of those or just want to help their users,
+head over to the section "Details about reporting issues only occurring in
+older kernel version lines" below.
+
+
+Optimize description to reproduce issue
+---------------------------------------
+
+ *Optimize your notes: try to find and write the most straightforward way to
+ reproduce your issue. Make sure the end result has all the important
+ details, and at the same time is easy to read and understand for others
+ that hear about it for the first time. And if you learned something in this
+ process, consider searching again for existing reports about the issue.*
+
+An unnecessarily complex report will make it hard for others to understand your
+report. Thus try to find a reproducer that's straight forward to describe and
+thus easy to understand in written form. Include all important details, but at
+the same time try to keep it as short as possible.
+
+In this in the previous steps you likely have learned a thing or two about the
+issue you face. Use this knowledge and search again for existing reports
+instead you can join.
+
+
+Decode failure messages
+-----------------------
+
+ *If the failure includes a stack dump, like an Oops does, consider decoding
+ it to find the offending line of code.*
+
+When the kernel detects an error, it will print a stack dump that allows to
+identify the exact line of code where the issue happens. But that information
+sometimes needs to get decoded to be readable, which is explained in
+admin-guide/bug-hunting.rst.
+
+
+Special care for regressions
+----------------------------
+
+.. note::
+
+ FIXME: The text in this section is a placeholder for now and quite similar to
+ the old text found in 'Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst'
+ currently. It and the document it references are known to be outdated and
+ thus need to be revisited. Thus consider this note a request for help: if you
+ are familiar with this topic, please write a few lines that would fit here.
+ Alternatively, simply outline the current situation roughly to the main
+ authors of this document (see intro), as they might be able to write
+ something then.
+
+ This section in the end should answer questions like "when is this actually
+ needed", "what .config options to ideally set earlier to make this step easy
+ or unnecessary?" (likely CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC when it's available, otherwise
+ CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER; but is there anything else needed?).
+
+..
+
+ *If your problem is a regression, try to narrow down when the issue was
+ introduced as much as possible.*
+
+Linux lead developer Linus Torvalds insists that the Linux kernel never
+worsens, that's why he deems regressions as unacceptable and wants to see them
+fixed quickly. That's why changes that introduced a regression are often
+promptly reverted if the issue they cause can't get solved quickly any other
+way. Reporting a regression is thus a bit like playing a kind of trump card to
+get something quickly fixed. But for that to happen the change that's causing
+the regression needs to be known. Normally it's up to the reporter to track
+down the culprit, as maintainers often won't have the time or setup at hand to
+reproduce it themselves.
+
+To find the change there is a process called 'bisection' which the document
+'Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst' describes in detail. That process
+will often require you to build about ten to twenty kernel images, trying to
+reproduce the issue with each of them before building the next. Yes, that takes
+some time, but don't worry, it works a lot quicker than most people assume.
+Thanks to a 'binary search' this will lead you to the one commit in the source
+code management system that's causing the regression. Once you find it, search
+the net for the subject of the change, its commit id and the shortened commit id
+(the first 12 characters of the commit id). This will lead you to existing
+reports about it, if there are any.
+
+Note, a bisection needs a bit of know-how, which not everyone has, and quite a
+bit of effort, which not everyone is willing to invest. Nevertheless, it's
+highly recommended performing a bisection yourself. If you really can't or
+don't want to go down that route at least find out which mainline kernel
+introduced the regression. If something for example breaks when switching from
+5.5.15 to 5.8.4, then try at least all the mainline releases in that area (5.6,
+5.7 and 5.8) to check when it first showed up. Unless you're trying to find a
+regression in a stable or longterm kernel, avoid testing versions which number
+has three sections (5.6.12, 5.7.8), as that makes the outcome hard to
+interpret, which might render your testing useless. Once you found the major
+version which introduced the regression, feel free to move on in the reporting
+process. But keep in mind: it depends on the issue at hand if the developers
+will be able to help without knowing the culprit. Sometimes they might
+recognize from the report want went wrong and can fix it; other times they will
+be unable to help unless you perform a bisection.
+
+When dealing with regressions make sure the issue you face is really caused by
+the kernel and not by something else, as outlined above already.
+
+In the whole process keep in mind: an issue only qualifies as regression if the
+older and the newer kernel got built with a similar configuration. The best way
+to archive this: copy the configuration file (``.config``) from the old working
+kernel freshly to each newer kernel version you try. Afterwards run ``make
+oldnoconfig`` to adjust it for the needs of the new version without enabling
+any new feature, as those are allowed to cause regressions.
+
+
+Write and send the report
+-------------------------
+
+ *Start to compile the report by writing a detailed description about the
+ issue. Always mention a few things: the latest kernel version you installed
+ for reproducing, the Linux Distribution used, and your notes on how to
+ reproduce the issue. Ideally, make the kernel's build configuration
+ (.config) and the output from ``dmesg`` available somewhere on the net and
+ link to it. Include or upload all other information that might be relevant,
+ like the output/screenshot of an Oops or the output from ``lspci``. Once
+ you wrote this main part, insert a normal length paragraph on top of it
+ outlining the issue and the impact quickly. On top of this add one sentence
+ that briefly describes the problem and gets people to read on. Now give the
+ thing a descriptive title or subject that yet again is shorter. Then you're
+ ready to send or file the report like the MAINTAINERS file told you, unless
+ you are dealing with one of those 'issues of high priority': they need
+ special care which is explained in 'Special handling for high priority
+ issues' below.*
+
+Now that you have prepared everything it's time to write your report. How to do
+that is partly explained by the three documents linked to in the preface above.
+That's why this text will only mention a few of the essentials as well as
+things specific to the Linux kernel.
+
+There is one thing that fits both categories: the most crucial parts of your
+report are the title/subject, the first sentence, and the first paragraph.
+Developers often get quite a lot of mail. They thus often just take a few
+seconds to skim a mail before deciding to move on or look closer. Thus: the
+better the top section of your report, the higher are the chances that someone
+will look into it and help you. And that is why you should ignore them for now
+and write the detailed report first. ;-)
+
+Things each report should mention
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Describe in detail how your issue happens with the fresh vanilla kernel you
+installed. Try to include the step-by-step instructions you wrote and optimized
+earlier that outline how you and ideally others can reproduce the issue; in
+those rare cases where that's impossible try to describe what you did to
+trigger it.
+
+Also include all the relevant information others might need to understand the
+issue and its environment. What's actually needed depends a lot on the issue,
+but there are some things you should include always:
+
+ * the output from ``cat /proc/version``, which contains the Linux kernel
+ version number and the compiler it was built with.
+
+ * the Linux distribution the machine is running (``hostnamectl | grep
+ "Operating System"``)
+
+ * the architecture of the CPU and the operating system (``uname -mi``)
+
+ * if you are dealing with a regression and performed a bisection, mention the
+ subject and the commit-id of the change that is causing it.
+
+In a lot of cases it's also wise to make two more things available to those
+that read your report:
+
+ * the configuration used for building your Linux kernel (the '.config' file)
+
+ * the kernel's messages that you get from ``dmesg`` written to a file. Make
+ sure that it starts with a line like 'Linux version 5.8-1
+ ([email protected]) (gcc (GCC) 10.2.1, GNU ld version 2.34) #1 SMP Mon Aug
+ 3 14:54:37 UTC 2020' If it's missing, then important messages from the first
+ boot phase already got discarded. In this case instead consider using
+ ``journalctl -b 0 -k``; alternatively you can also reboot, reproduce the
+ issue and call ``dmesg`` right afterwards.
+
+These two files are big, that's why it's a bad idea to put them directly into
+your report. If you are filing the issue in a bug tracker then attach them to
+the ticket. If you report the issue by mail do not attach them, as that makes
+the mail too large; instead do one of these things:
+
+ * Upload the files somewhere public (your website, a public file paste
+ service, a ticket created just for this purpose on `bugzilla.kernel.org
+ <https://bugzilla.kernel.org/>`_, ...) and include a link to them in your
+ report. Ideally use something where the files stay available for years, as
+ they could be useful to someone many years from now; this for example can
+ happen if five or ten years from now a developer works on some code that was
+ changed just to fix your issue.
+
+ * Put the files aside and mention you will send them later in individual
+ replies to your own mail. Just remember to actually do that once the report
+ went out. ;-)
+
+Things that might be wise to provide
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Depending on the issue you might need to add more background data. Here are a
+few suggestions what often is good to provide:
+
+ * If you are dealing with a 'warning', an 'OOPS' or a 'panic' from the kernel,
+ include it. If you can't copy'n'paste it, try to capture a netconsole trace
+ or at least take a picture of the screen.
+
+ * If the issue might be related to your computer hardware, mention what kind
+ of system you use. If you for example have problems with your graphics card,
+ mention its manufacturer, the card's model, and what chip is uses. If it's a
+ laptop mention its name, but try to make sure it's meaningful. 'Dell XPS 13'
+ for example is not, because it might be the one from 2012; that one looks
+ not that different from the one sold today, but apart from that the two have
+ nothing in common. Hence, in such cases add the exact model number, which
+ for example are '9380' or '7390' for XPS 13 models introduced during 2019.
+ Names like 'Lenovo Thinkpad T590' are also somewhat ambiguous: there are
+ variants of this laptop with and without a dedicated graphics chip, so try
+ to find the exact model name or specify the main components.
+
+ * Mention the relevant software in use. If you have problems with loading
+ modules, you want to mention the versions of kmod, systemd, and udev in use.
+ If one of the DRM drivers misbehaves, you want to state the versions of
+ libdrm and Mesa; also specify your Wayland compositor or the X-Server and
+ its driver. If you have a filesystem issue, mention the version of
+ corresponding filesystem utilities (e2fsprogs, btrfs-progs, xfsprogs, ...).
+
+ * Gather additional information from the kernel that might be of interest. The
+ output from ``lspci -nn`` will for example help others to identify what
+ hardware you use. If you have a problem with hardware you even might want to
+ make the output from ``sudo lspci -vvv`` available, as that provides
+ insights how the components were configured. For some issues it might be
+ good to include the contents of files like ``/proc/cpuinfo``,
+ ``/proc/ioports``, ``/proc/iomem``, ``/proc/modules``, or
+ ``/proc/scsi/scsi``. Some subsystem also offer tools to collect relevant
+ information. One such tool is ``alsa-info.sh`` `which the audio/sound
+ subsystem developers provide <https://www.alsa-project.org/wiki/AlsaInfo>`_.
+
+Those examples should give your some ideas of what data might be wise to
+attach, but you have to think yourself what will be helpful for others to know.
+Don't worry too much about forgetting something, as developers will ask for
+additional details they need. But making everything important available from
+the start increases the chance someone will take a closer look.
+
+
+The important part: the head of your report
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Now that you have the detailed part of the report prepared let's get to the
+most important section: the first few sentences. Thus go to the top, add
+something like 'The detailed description:' before the part you just wrote and
+insert two newlines at the top. Now write one normal length paragraph that
+describes the issue roughly. Leave out all boring details and focus on the
+crucial parts readers need to know to understand what this is all about; if you
+think this bug affects a lot of users, mention this to get people interested.
+
+Once you did that insert two more lines at the top and write a one sentence
+summary that explains quickly what the report is about. After that you have to
+get even more abstract and write an even shorter subject/title for the report.
+
+Now that you have written this part take some time to optimize it, as it is the
+most important parts of your report: a lot of people will only read this before
+they decide if reading the rest is time well spent.
+
+Now send or file the report like the :ref:`MAINTAINERS <maintainers>` file told
+you, unless it's one of those 'issues of high priority' outlined earlier: in
+that case please read the next subsection first before sending the report on
+its way.
+
+Special handling for high priority issues
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Reports for high priority issues need special handling.
+
+**Severe bugs**: make sure the subject or ticket title as well as the first
+paragraph makes the severeness obvious.
+
+**Regressions**: If the issue is a regression add [REGRESSION] to the mail's
+subject or the title in the bug-tracker. If you did not perform a bisection
+mention at least the latest mainline version you tested that worked fine (say
+5.7) and the oldest where the issue occurs (say 5.8). If you did a successful
+bisection mention the commit id and subject of the change that causes the
+regression. Also make sure to add the author of that change to your report; if
+you need to file your bug in a bug-tracker forward the report to him in a
+private mail and mention where your filed it.
+
+**Security issues**: for these issues your will have to evaluate if a
+short-term risk to other users would arise if details were publicly disclosed.
+If that's not the case simply proceed with reporting the issue as described.
+For issues that bear such a risk you will need to adjust the reporting process
+slightly:
+
+ * If the MAINTAINERS file instructed you to report the issue by mail, do not
+ CC any public mailing lists.
+
+ * If you were supposed to file the issue in a bug tracker make sure to mark
+ the ticket as 'private' or 'security issue'. If the bug tracker does not
+ offer a way to keep reports private, forget about it and send your report as
+ a private mail to the maintainers instead.
+
+In both cases make sure to also mail your report to the addresses the
+MAINTAINERS file lists in the section 'security contact'. Ideally directly CC
+them when sending the report by mail. If you filed it in a bug tracker, forward
+the report's text to these addresses; but on top of it put a small note where
+you mention that you filed it with a link to the ticket.
+
+See 'Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst' for more information.
+
+
+Duties after the report went out
+--------------------------------
+
+ *Wait for reactions and keep the thing rolling until you can accept the
+ outcome in one way or the other. Thus react publicly and in a timely manner
+ to any inquiries. Test proposed fixes. Do proactive testing: retest with at
+ least every first release candidate (RC) of a new mainline version and
+ report your results. Send friendly reminders if things stall. And try to
+ help yourself, if you don't get any help or if it's unsatisfying.*
+
+If your report was good and you are really lucky then one of the developers
+might immediately spot what's causing the issue; they then might write a patch
+to fix it, test it, and send it straight for integration in mainline while
+tagging it for later backport to stable and longterm kernels that need it. Then
+all you need to do is reply with a 'Thank you very much' and switch to a version
+with the fix once it gets released.
+
+But this ideal scenario rarely happens. That's why the job is only starting
+once you got the report out. What you'll have to do depends on the situations,
+but often it will be the things listed below. But before digging into the
+details, here are a few important things you need to keep in mind for this part
+of the process.
+
+
+General advice for further interactions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+**Always reply in public**: When you filed the issue in a bug tracker, always
+reply there and do not contact any of the developers privately about it. For
+mailed reports always use the 'Reply-all' function when replying to any mails
+you receive. That includes mails with any additional data you might want to add
+to your report: go to your mail applications 'Sent' folder and use 'reply-all'
+on your mail with the report. This approach will make sure the public mailing
+list(s) and everyone else that gets involved over time stays in the loop; it
+also keeps the mail thread intact, which among others is really important for
+mailing lists to group all related mails together.
+
+There are just two situations where a comment in a bug tracker or a 'Reply-all'
+is unsuitable:
+
+ * Someone tells you to send something privately.
+
+ * You were told to send something, but noticed it contains sensitive
+ information that needs to be kept private. In that case it's okay to send it
+ in private to the developer that asked for it. But note in the ticket or a
+ mail that you did that, so everyone else knows you honored the request.
+
+**Do research before asking for clarifications or help**: In this part of the
+process someone might tell you to do something that requires a skill you might
+not have mastered yet. For example, you might be asked to use some test tools
+you never have heard of yet; or you might be asked to apply a patch to the
+Linux kernel sources to test if it helps. In some cases it will be fine sending
+a reply asking for instructions how to do that. But before going that route try
+to find the answer own your own by searching the internet; alternatively
+consider asking in other places for advice. For example ask a fried or post
+about it to a chatroom or forum you normally hang out.
+
+**Be patient**: If you are really lucky you might get a reply to your report
+within a few hours. But most of the time it will take longer, as maintainers
+are scattered around the globe and thus might be in a different time zone – one
+where they already enjoy their night away from keyboard.
+
+In general, kernel developers will take one to five business days to respond to
+reports. Sometimes it will take longer, as they might be busy with the merge
+windows, other work, visiting developer conferences, or simply enjoying a long
+summer holiday.
+
+The 'issues of high priority' (see above for an explanation) are an exception
+here: maintainers should address them as soon as possible; that's why you
+should wait a week at maximum (or just two days if it's something urgent)
+before sending a friendly reminder.
+
+Sometimes the maintainer might not be responding in a timely manner; other
+times there might be disagreements, for example if an issue qualifies as
+regression or not. In such cases raise your concerns on the mailing list and
+ask others for public or private replies how to move on. If that fails, it
+might be appropriate to get a higher authority involved. In case of a WiFi
+driver that would be the wireless maintainers; if there are no higher level
+maintainers or all else fails, it might be one of those rare situations where
+it's okay to get Linus Torvalds involved.
+
+**Proactive testing**: Every time the first pre-release (the 'rc1') of a new
+mainline kernel version gets released, go and check if the issue is fixed there
+or if anything of importance changed. Mention the outcome in the ticket or in a
+mail you sent as reply to your report (make sure it has all those in the CC
+that up to that point participated in the discussion). This will show your
+commitment and that you are willing to help. It also tells developers if the
+issue persists and makes sure they do not forget about it. A few other
+occasional retests (for example with rc3, rc5 and the final) are also a good
+idea, but only report your results if something relevant changed or if you are
+writing something anyway.
+
+With all these general things off the table let's get into the details of how
+to help to get issues resolved once they were reported.
+
+Inquires and testing request
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Here are your duties in case you got replies to your report:
+
+**Check who you deal with**: Most of the time it will be the maintainer or a
+developer of the particular code area that will respond to your report. But as
+issues are normally reported in public it could be anyone that's replying —
+including people that want to help, but in the end might guide you totally off
+track with their questions or requests. That rarely happens, but it's one of
+many reasons why it's wise to quickly run an internet search to see who you're
+interacting with. By doing this you also get aware if your report was heard by
+the right people, as a reminder to the maintainer (see below) might be in order
+later if discussion fades out without leading to a satisfying solution for the
+issue.
+
+**Inquiries for data**: Often you will be asked to test something or provide
+additional details. Try to provide the requested information soon, as you have
+the attention of someone that might help and risk losing it the longer you
+wait; that outcome is even likely if you do not provide the information within
+a few business days.
+
+**Requests for testing**: When you are asked to test a diagnostic patch or a
+possible fix, try to test it in timely manner, too. But do it properly and make
+sure to not rush it: mixing things up can happen easily and can lead to a lot
+of confusion for everyone involved. A common mistake for example is thinking a
+proposed patch with a fix was applied, but in fact wasn't. Things like that
+happen even to experienced testers occasionally, but they most of the time will
+notice when the kernel with the fix behaves just as one without it.
+
+What to do when nothing of substance happens
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Some reports will not get any reaction from the responsible Linux kernel
+developers; or a discussion around the issue evolved, but faded out with
+nothing of substance coming out of it.
+
+In these cases wait two (better: three) weeks before sending a friendly
+reminder: maybe the maintainer was just away from keyboard for a while when
+your report arrived or had something more important to take care of. When
+writing the reminder, kindly ask if anything else from your side is needed to
+get the ball running somehow. If the report got out by mail, do that in the
+first lines of a mail that is a reply to your initial mail (see above) which
+includes a full quote of the original report below: that's on of those few
+situations where such a 'TOFU' (Text Over, Fullquote Under) is the right
+approach, as then all the recipients will have the details at hand immediately
+in the proper order.
+
+After the reminder wait three more weeks for replies. If you still don't get a
+proper reaction, you first should reconsider your approach. Did you maybe try
+to reach out to the wrong people? Was the report maybe offensive or so
+confusing that people decided to completely stay away from it? The best way to
+rule out such factors: show the report to one or two people familiar with FLOSS
+issue reporting and ask for their opinion. Also ask them for their advice how
+to move forward. That might mean: prepare a better report and make those people
+review it before you send it out. Such an approach is totally fine; just
+mention that this is the second and improved report on the issue and include a
+link to the first report.
+
+If the report was proper you can send a second reminder; in it ask for advice
+why the report did not get any replies. A good moment for this second reminder
+mail is shortly after the first pre-release (the 'rc1') of a new Linux kernel
+version got published, as you should retest and provide a status update at that
+point anyway (see above).
+
+If the second reminder again results in no reaction within a week, try to
+contact a higher-level maintainer asking for advice: even busy maintainers by
+then should at least have sent some kind of acknowledgment.
+
+Remember to prepare yourself for a disappointment: maintainers ideally should
+react somehow to every issue report, but they are only obliged to fix those
+'issues of high priority' outlined earlier. So don't be too devastating if you
+get a reply along the lines of 'thanks for the report, I have more important
+issues to deal with currently and won't have time to look into this for the
+foreseeable future'.
+
+It's also possible that after some discussion in the bug tracker or on a list
+nothing happens anymore and reminders don't help to motivate anyone to work out
+a fix. Such situations can be devastating, but is within the cards when it
+comes to Linux kernel development. This and several other reasons for not
+getting help are explained in 'Why some issues won't get any reaction or remain
+unfixed after being reported' near the end of this document.
+
+Don't get devastated if you don't find any help or if the issue in the end does
+not get solved: the Linux kernel is FLOSS and thus you can still help yourself.
+You for example could try to find others that are affected and team up with
+them to get the issue resolved. Such a team could prepare a fresh report
+together that mentions how many you are and why this is something that in your
+option should get fixed. Maybe together you can also narrow down the root cause
+or the change that introduced a regression, which often makes developing a fix
+easier. And with a bit of luck there might be someone in the team that knows a
+bit about programming and might be able to write a fix.
+
+
+Details about reporting issues only occurring in older kernel version lines
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This subsection provides details for steps you need to take if you could not
+reproduce your issue with a mainline kernel, but want to see it fixed in older
+version lines (aka stable and longterm kernels).
+
+Some fixes are too complex
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *Prepare yourself for the possibility that going through the next few steps
+ might not get the issue solved in older releases: the fix might be too big
+ or risky to get backported there.*
+
+Even small and seemingly obvious code-changes sometimes introduce new and
+totally unexpected problems. The maintainers of the stable and longterm kernels
+are very aware of that and thus only apply changes to these kernels that are
+within rules outlined in 'Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst'.
+
+Complex or risky changes for example do not qualify and thus only get applied
+to mainline. Other fixes are easy to get backported to the newest stable and
+longterm kernels, but too risky to integrate into older ones. So be aware the
+fix you are hoping for might be one of those that won't be backported to the
+version line your care about. In that case you'll have no other choice then to
+live with the issue or switch to a newer Linux version, unless you want to
+patch the fix into your kernels yourself.
+
+Make sure the particular version line still gets support
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *Check if the kernel developers still maintain the Linux kernel version
+ line you care about: go to the front page of kernel.org and make sure it
+ mentions the latest release of the particular version line without an
+ '[EOL]' tag.*
+
+Most kernel version lines only get supported for about three months, as
+maintaining them longer is quite a lot of work. Hence, only one per year is
+chosen and gets supported for at least two years (often six). That's why you
+need to check if the kernel developers still support the version line you care
+for.
+
+Note, if kernel.org lists two 'stable' version lines on the front page, you
+should consider switching to the newer one and forget about the older one:
+support for it is likely to be abandoned soon. Then it will get a "end-of-life"
+(EOL) stamp. Version lines that reached that point still get mentioned on the
+kernel.org front page for a week or two, but are unsuitable for testing and
+reporting.
+
+Search stable mailing list
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *Check the archives of the Linux stable mailing list for existing reports.*
+
+Maybe the issue you face is already known and was fixed or is about to. Hence,
+`search the archives of the Linux stable mailing list
+<https://lore.kernel.org/stable/>`_ for reports about an issue like yours. If
+you find any matches, consider joining the discussion, unless the fix is
+already finished and scheduled to get applied soon.
+
+Reproduce issue with the newest release
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *Install the latest release from the particular version line as a vanilla
+ kernel. Ensure this kernel is not tainted and still shows the problem, as
+ the issue might have already been fixed there.*
+
+Before investing any more time in this process you want to check if the issue
+was already fixed in the latest release of version line you're interested in.
+This kernel needs to be vanilla and shouldn't be tainted before the issue
+happens, as detailed outlined already above in the process of testing mainline.
+
+Check code history and search for existing discussions
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *Search the Linux kernel version control system for the change that fixed
+ the issue in mainline, as its commit message might tell you if the fix is
+ scheduled for backporting already. If you don't find anything that way,
+ search the appropriate mailing lists for posts that discuss such an issue
+ or peer-review possible fixes; then check the discussions if the fix was
+ deemed unsuitable for backporting. If backporting was not considered at
+ all, join the newest discussion, asking if it's in the cards.*
+
+In a lot of cases the issue you deal with will have happened with mainline, but
+got fixed there. The commit that fixed it would need to get backported as well
+to get the issue solved. That's why you want to search for it or any
+discussions abound it.
+
+ * First try to find the fix in the Git repository that holds the Linux kernel
+ sources. You can do this with the web interfaces `on kernel.org
+ <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/>`_
+ or its mirror `on GitHub <https://github.com/torvalds/linux>`_; if you have
+ a local clone you alternatively can search on the command line with ``git
+ log --grep=<pattern>``.
+
+ If you find the fix, look if the commit message near the end contains a
+ 'stable tag' that looks like this:
+
+ Cc: <[email protected]> # 5.4+
+
+ If that's case the developer marked the fix safe for backporting to version
+ line 5.4 and later. Most of the time it's getting applied there within two
+ weeks, but sometimes it takes a bit longer.
+
+ * If the commit doesn't tell you anything or if you can't find the fix, look
+ again for discussions about the issue. Search the net with your favorite
+ internet search engine as well as the archives for the `Linux kernel
+ developers mailing list <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/>`_. Also read the
+ section `Locate kernel area that causes the issue` above and follow the
+ instructions to find the subsystem in question: its bug tracker or mailing
+ list archive might have the answer you are looking for.
+
+ * If you see a proposed fix, search for it in the version control system as
+ outlined above, as the commit might tell you if a backport can be expected.
+
+ * Check the discussions for any indicators the fix might be too risky to get
+ backported to the version line you care about. If that's the case you have
+ to live with the issue or switch to the kernel version line where the fix
+ got applied.
+
+ * If the fix doesn't contain a stable tag and backporting was not discussed,
+ join the discussion: mention the version where you face the issue and that
+ you would like to see it fixed, if suitable.
+
+Check if it's a regression specific to stable or longterm kernels
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *Check if you're dealing with a regression that was never present in
+ mainline by installing the first release of the version line you care
+ about. If the issue doesn't show up with it, you basically need to report
+ the issue with this version like you would report a problem with mainline
+ (see above). This ideally includes a bisection followed by a search for
+ existing reports on the net; with the help of the subject and the two
+ relevant commit-ids. If that doesn't turn up anything, write the report; CC
+ or forward the report to the stable maintainers, the stable mailing list,
+ and those who authored the change. Include the shortened commit-id if you
+ found the change that causes it.*
+
+Sometimes you won't find anything in the previous step: the issue you face
+might have never occurred in mainline, as it is caused by some change that is
+incomplete or not correctly applied. To check this, install the first release
+from version line you care about, e.g., if you care about 5.4.x, install 5.4.
+
+If the issue doesn't show itself there, it's a regression specific to the
+particular version line. In that case you need to report it like an issue
+happening in mainline, like the last few steps in the main section in the above
+outline.
+
+One of them suggests doing a bisection, which you are strongly advised to do in
+this case. After finding the culprit, search the net for existing reports
+again: not only search for the exact subject and the commit-id (proper and
+shortened to twelve characters) of the change, but also for the commit-id
+(proper and shortened) mentioned as 'Upstream commit' in the commit message.
+
+Write the report; just keep a few specialties in mind: CC or forward the report
+to the stable maintainers, the stable mailing list, which the :ref:`MAINTAINERS
+<maintainers>` file mentions in the section "STABLE BRANCH". If you performed a
+successful bisection, CC the author of the change and include its subject and
+the shortened commit-id.
+
+Ask for advice
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+ *One of the former steps should lead to a solution. If that doesn't work
+ out, ask the maintainers for the subsystem that seems to be causing the
+ issue for advice; CC the mailing list for the particular subsystem as well
+ as the stable mailing list.*
+
+If the previous three steps didn't get you closer to a solution there is only
+one option left: ask for advice. Do that in a mail you sent to the maintainers
+for the subsystem where the issue seems to have its roots; CC the mailing list
+for the subsystem as well as the stable mailing list the :ref:`MAINTAINERS
+<maintainers>` file mention in the section "STABLE BRANCH".
+
+
+Why some issues won't get any reaction or remain unfixed after being reported
+=============================================================================
+
+When reporting a problem to the Linux developers, be aware only 'issues of high
+priority' (regressions, security issues, severe problems) are definitely going
+to get resolved. The maintainers or if all else fails Linus Torvalds himself
+will make sure of that. They and the other kernel developers will fix a lot of
+other issues as well. But be aware that sometimes they can't or won't help; and
+sometimes there isn't even anyone to send a report to.
+
+This is best explained with kernel developers that contribute to the Linux
+kernel in their spare time. Quite a few of the drivers in the kernel were
+written by such programmers, often because they simply wanted to make their
+hardware usable on their favorite operating system.
+
+These programmers most of the time will happily fix problems other people
+report. But nobody can force them to do, as they are contributing voluntarily.
+
+Then there are situations where such developers really want to fix an issue,
+but can't: sometimes they lack hardware programming documentation to do so.
+This often happens when the publicly available docs are superficial or the
+driver was written with the help of reverse engineering.
+
+Sooner or later spare time developers will also stop caring for the driver.
+Maybe their test hardware broke, got replaced by something more fancy, or is so
+old that it's something you don't find much outside of computer museums
+anymore. Sometimes developer stops caring for their code and Linux at all, as
+something different in their life became way more important. In some cases
+nobody is willing to take over the job as maintainer – and nobody can be forced
+to, as contributing to the Linux kernel is done on a voluntary basis. Abandoned
+drivers nevertheless remain in the kernel: they are still useful for people and
+removing would be a regression.
+
+The situation is not that different with developers that are paid for their
+work on the Linux kernel. Those contribute most changes these days. But their
+employers sooner or later also stop caring for their code or make its
+programmer focus on other things. Hardware vendors for example earn their money
+mainly by selling new hardware; quite a few of them hence are not investing
+much time and energy in maintaining a Linux kernel driver for something they
+stopped selling years ago. Enterprise Linux distributors often care for a
+longer time period, but in new versions often leave support for old and rare
+hardware aside to limit the scope. Often spare time contributors take over once
+a company orphans some code, but as mentioned above: sooner or later they will
+leave the code behind, too.
+
+Priorities are another reason why some issues are not fixed, as maintainers
+quite often are forced to set those, as time to work on Linux is limited.
+That's true for spare time or the time employers grant their developers to
+spend on maintenance work on the upstream kernel. Sometimes maintainers also
+get overwhelmed with reports, even if a driver is working nearly perfectly. To
+not get completely stuck, the programmer thus might have no other choice than
+to prioritize issue reports and reject some of them.
+
+But don't worry too much about all of this, a lot of drivers have active
+maintainers who are quite interested in fixing as many issues as possible.
+
+
+Closing words
+=============
+
+Compared with other Free/Libre & Open Source Software it's hard to report
+issues to the Linux kernel developers: the length and complexity of this
+document and the implications between the lines illustrate that. But that's how
+it is for now. The main author of this text hopes documenting the state of the
+art will lay some groundwork to improve the situation over time.
--
2.28.0
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am 24.11.20 um 10:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
>>> which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
>>> attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
>>> CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
>>> afaics better than using MIT for text files.
>>
>> And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
>> me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
>
> Argh, sorry, slipped through. You can find it here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2f314e58cb14c1579f843f8c72bdb4bbb83ac20a.1606137108.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
>
> FWIW, here it is for easy access (just sent with thunderbird instead of
> git send-mail, hopefully should be enough for this):
So what is so special with this documentation that it needs a
(for the kernel tree) unusual license? How to we make sure people
don't accidentally end up including things they can't?
Am 24.11.20 um 10:36 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Am 24.11.20 um 10:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
>>>> which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
>>>> attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
>>>> CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
>>>> afaics better than using MIT for text files.
>>>
>>> And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
>>> me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
>>
>> Argh, sorry, slipped through. You can find it here:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2f314e58cb14c1579f843f8c72bdb4bbb83ac20a.1606137108.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
>>
>> FWIW, here it is for easy access (just sent with thunderbird instead of
>> git send-mail, hopefully should be enough for this):
>
> So what is so special with this documentation that it needs a
> (for the kernel tree) unusual license?
There is nothing special with this text, it's just that GPL is known to
not be really ideal for documentation. That makes it hard for people to
reuse parts of the docs outside of the kernel context, say in books or
on websites. But it IMHO would be good for us if others could simply use
this text as a base in such places. Otherwise they'd often face a
situation where they had to write something completely new themselves,
which afsics often leads to texts that can be incomplete, inaccurate or
actually missleading. That can lead to bad bug reports, which is
annoying both for reporters and kernel developers.
That's why I came up with the thought "make the text available under
more liberal license in addition to the GPLv2 is a good idea here". I
considered MIT, but from what I see CC-BY 4.0 is a way better choice for
documentation that is more known to authors.
And I hope others pick up the idea when they write new documentation for
the kernel, so maybe sooner or later it's not unusual anymore.
> How to we make sure people
> don't accidentally end up including things they can't?
Well, the license in only specified in the header and not visible in the
rendered HTML, which reduces the risk already. To make it even smaller I
could add something like this to the header:
```
In case you want to use this text under CC-BY-4.0, make sure to take the
plaintext version
straight from the Linux kernel sources as base. This is because
processed versions of this text (like one rendered to HTML or PDF) will
have text in them
that is taken from other files which that are not available under
CC-BY-4.0
license.
```
Ciao, Thorsten
Am 24.11.20 um 13:11 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:07:41AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> There is nothing special with this text, it's just that GPL is known to not
>> be really ideal for documentation. That makes it hard for people to reuse
>> parts of the docs outside of the kernel context, say in books or on
>> websites. But it IMHO would be good for us if others could simply use this
>> text as a base in such places. Otherwise they'd often face a situation where
>> they had to write something completely new themselves, which afsics often
>> leads to texts that can be incomplete, inaccurate or actually missleading.
>> That can lead to bad bug reports, which is annoying both for reporters and
>> kernel developers.
>>
>> That's why I came up with the thought "make the text available under more
>> liberal license in addition to the GPLv2 is a good idea here". I considered
>> MIT, but from what I see CC-BY 4.0 is a way better choice for documentation
>> that is more known to authors.
>>
>> And I hope others pick up the idea when they write new documentation for the
>> kernel, so maybe sooner or later it's not unusual anymore.
>
> It's really tricky to make this work when, eg, including kernel-doc from
> files which are unambiguously licensed under the GPL.
Yeah, I'm aware of that and see the risk. But the text I proposed does
not include anything from other files (apart from titles), so is this
risk a problem for this case? Or just something you fear might become a
problem when other texts in the documentation start to use CC-BY without
thinking it through?
And the processed text at no point mentions its license, so people can't
redistribute it anyway. Only the source file mentions it, where nothing
is included.
> I'd be happy to
> sign up to licensing the files I control under GPL-with-CC-BY-SA-exception
> that said something like "any documentation extracted from this file may
> be distributed under the BY-SA license", but I'm not sure everybody would.
I tend to say discussing steps like that is better left for a point of
time when somebody actually wants to use BY-SA for the documentation and
include kernel-doc from source files at the same time.
Ciao, Thorsten
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:07:41AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> There is nothing special with this text, it's just that GPL is known to not
> be really ideal for documentation. That makes it hard for people to reuse
> parts of the docs outside of the kernel context, say in books or on
> websites. But it IMHO would be good for us if others could simply use this
> text as a base in such places. Otherwise they'd often face a situation where
> they had to write something completely new themselves, which afsics often
> leads to texts that can be incomplete, inaccurate or actually missleading.
> That can lead to bad bug reports, which is annoying both for reporters and
> kernel developers.
>
> That's why I came up with the thought "make the text available under more
> liberal license in addition to the GPLv2 is a good idea here". I considered
> MIT, but from what I see CC-BY 4.0 is a way better choice for documentation
> that is more known to authors.
>
> And I hope others pick up the idea when they write new documentation for the
> kernel, so maybe sooner or later it's not unusual anymore.
It's really tricky to make this work when, eg, including kernel-doc from
files which are unambiguously licensed under the GPL. I'd be happy to
sign up to licensing the files I control under GPL-with-CC-BY-SA-exception
that said something like "any documentation extracted from this file may
be distributed under the BY-SA license", but I'm not sure everybody would.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
> which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
> attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
> CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
> afaics better than using MIT for text files.
And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
Am 24.11.20 um 10:36 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Am 24.11.20 um 10:18 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:00:01AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> For context: Patch 2 of this series adds a text to the Documentation/ directory
>>>> which (for now) uses "GPL-2.0+ OR CC-BY-4.0", as I want to make it easy and
>>>> attractive for others to base their work on it. I'm not strongly attached to
>>>> CC-BY-4.0, but it seemed like the best choice: it's designed for such usage and
>>>> afaics better than using MIT for text files.
>>> And you've not Cced me on that patch 2 or patch 3, which makes Ccing
>>> me on this pretty useless as I can't judge the context.
>> Argh, sorry, slipped through. You can find it here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2f314e58cb14c1579f843f8c72bdb4bbb83ac20a.1606137108.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
>
> [...] How to we make sure people
> don't accidentally end up including things they can't?
A quick question for this part of your mail; I'm getting on thin ice
with it (hope I won't regret this), but I guess it's worth it to make me
understand the problem better:
How is having a CC-BY text that tracks in part from GPL2 text or code in
this case any different than having MIT code that links or includes
GPLv2 licensed code? Both CC-BY and MIT are compatible to the GPL (see
[1]) and the processed result is only available under GPL (see [2]).
Ciao, Thorsten
[1]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ccby
[2]
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:11:09 +0000
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's why I came up with the thought "make the text available under more
> > liberal license in addition to the GPLv2 is a good idea here". I considered
> > MIT, but from what I see CC-BY 4.0 is a way better choice for documentation
> > that is more known to authors.
> >
> > And I hope others pick up the idea when they write new documentation for the
> > kernel, so maybe sooner or later it's not unusual anymore.
>
> It's really tricky to make this work when, eg, including kernel-doc from
> files which are unambiguously licensed under the GPL.
As Thorsten points out, there are no such directives in this particular
document. I don't really see how any such could come to be introduced; we
could add a comment at the top saying that none should be added if that
would help.
We could also, if we saw fit, take the position that anything that has
been processed through the docs build is a derived product of the kernel
and must be GPL-licensed - any dual-licensing would be stripped by that
act. That, too, should address this concern, I think.
In general I'd rather see fewer licenses in Documentation/ than more. But
Thorsten has put a lot of effort into this work; if he wants to
dual-license it in this way, my inclination is to accommodate him. But
that requires getting CC-BY-4.0 accepted into the LICENSES directory.
(That said, I believe it should go into LICENSES/dual/ rather than
preferred/).
Thanks,
jon
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:51:37AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> We could also, if we saw fit, take the position that anything that has
> been processed through the docs build is a derived product of the kernel
> and must be GPL-licensed - any dual-licensing would be stripped by that
> act. That, too, should address this concern, I think.
>
> In general I'd rather see fewer licenses in Documentation/ than more. But
> Thorsten has put a lot of effort into this work; if he wants to
> dual-license it in this way, my inclination is to accommodate him. But
> that requires getting CC-BY-4.0 accepted into the LICENSES directory.
> (That said, I believe it should go into LICENSES/dual/ rather than
> preferred/).
I agree with everything said above.
Am 01.12.20 um 15:43 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 07:51:37AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
@Jonathan: thx for getting the ball rolling again!
>> We could also, if we saw fit, take the position that anything that has
>> been processed through the docs build is a derived product of the kernel
>> and must be GPL-licensed -
That position is totally fine for me (and in fact I think that's how
things are in that area anyway, but I'm no licensing expect).
>> any dual-licensing would be stripped by that
>> act. That, too, should address this concern, I think.
How to make this explicit? Right now the document I want to submit only
mentions the license in a comment near the top. From a quick test with
'make htmldocs' on f33 with sphinx-build 3.2.1 it seems comments are
stripped during processing, so the license won't be visible in the
processed document anyway. So I guess adding this as comment below the
SPDX tag should be enough:
```
Note: Only the contents of this rst file as found in the Linux kernel
sources are available under CC-BY-4.0, as processed versions might
contain content taken from files that use a more restrictive license.
```
Or should we add something like this to a top-level documentation file
to make it explicit for all of the documentation:
```
The processed Linux kernel documentation can be distributed under GPL
v2.0; some of the files used to build the documentation are available
under other licenses, check the Documentation/ directory in the Linux
sources for details.
```
>> In general I'd rather see fewer licenses in Documentation/ than more.
Fully agreed, but I checked the existing licenses first and none of them
afaics came even close to what I'd prefer to see (maybe MIT does, but
I'm not really sure).
>> But
>> Thorsten has put a lot of effort into this work; if he wants to
>> dual-license it in this way, my inclination is to accommodate him.
Thx for your support.
>> But
>> that requires getting CC-BY-4.0 accepted into the LICENSES directory.
>> (That said, I believe it should go into LICENSES/dual/ rather than
>> preferred/).
> I agree with everything said above.
Fine with me also, but I guess I need a little help here. The files that
currently resist in that directory all contain this near the top:
```
Do NOT use. The Apache-2.0 is not GPL2 compatible. It may only be used
for dual-licensed files where the other license is GPL2 compatible. If
you end up using this it MUST be used together with a GPL2 compatible
license using "OR".
```
CC-BY-4.0 is GPL2 compatible afaik, so what do I write instead?
Something like this?
```
Do NOT use for code, but it's acceptable for content like artwork or
documentation. When using it for the latter, it's best to use it
together with a GPL2 compatible license using "OR", as processed
CC-BY-4.0 document might include content taken from more restrictive
licenses.
```
Do we need more? Something like this maybe: "That's also why you might
want to point that risk out in a comment near the SPDX tag." Or is that
too much?
Ciao, Thorsten