docs: netdev: update the link to the CI repo

Netronome graciously transferred the original NIPA repo
to our new netdev umbrella org. Link to that instead of
my private fork.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240216161945.2208842-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>

docs: netdev: try to guide people on dealing with silence

There has been more than a few threads which went idle before
the merge window and now people came back to them and started
asking about next steps.

We currently tell people to be patient and not to repost too
often. Our "not too often", however, is still a few orders of
magnitude faster than other subsystems. Or so I feel after
hearing people talk about review rates at LPC.

Clarify in the doc that if the discussion went idle for a week
on netdev, 95% of the time there's no point waiting longer.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231120200109.620392-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

docs: try to encourage (netdev?) reviewers

Add a section to netdev maintainer doc encouraging reviewers
to chime in on the mailing list.

The questions about "when is it okay to share feedback"
keep coming up (most recently at netconf) and the answer
is "pretty much always".

Extend the section of 7.AdvancedTopics.rst which deals
with reviews a little bit to add stuff we had been recommending
locally.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: update the netdev infra URLs

Some corporate proxies block our current NIPA URLs because
they use a free / shady DNS domain. As suggested by Jesse
we got a new DNS entry from Konstantin - netdev.bots.linux.dev,
use it.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: document patchwork patch states

The patchwork states are largely self-explanatory but small
ambiguities may still come up. Document how we interpret
the states in networking.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: recommend against --in-reply-to

It's somewhat unfortunate but with (my?) the current tooling
if people post new versions of a set in reply to an old version
managing the review queue gets difficult. So recommend against it.

Reviewed-by: Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230823154922.1162644-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

docs: netdev: update the URL of the status page

Move the status page from vger to the same server as mailbot.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230710174636.1174684-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

docs: netdev: broaden mailbot to all MAINTAINERS

Reword slightly now that all MAINTAINERS have access to the commands.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: document the existence of the mail bot

We had a good run, but after 4 weeks of use we heard someone
asking about pw-bot commands. Let's explain its existence
in the docs. It's not a complete documentation but hopefully
it's enough for the casual contributor. The project and scope
are in flux so the details would likely become out of date,
if we were to document more in depth.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230522140057.GB18381@nucnuc.mle/
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230522230903.1853151-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

docs: netdev: clarify the need to sending reverts as patches

We don't state explicitly that reverts need to be submitted
as a patch. It occasionally comes up.

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230327172646.2622943-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

docs: netdev: add note about Changes Requested and revising commit messages

One of the most commonly asked questions is "I answered all questions
and don't need to make any code changes, why was the patch not applied".
Document our time honored tradition of asking people to repost with
improved commit messages, to record the answers to reviewer questions.

Take this opportunity to also recommend a change log format.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230322231202.265835-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

docs: netdev: convert to a non-FAQ document

The netdev-FAQ document has grown over the years to the point
where finding information in it is somewhat challenging.
The length of the questions prevents readers from locating
content that's relevant at a glance.

Convert to a more standard documentation format with sections
and sub-sections rather than questions and answers.

The content edits are limited to what's necessary to change
the format, and very minor clarifications.

Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: reshuffle sections in prep for de-FAQization

Subsequent changes will reformat the doc away from FAQ.
To make that more readable perform the pure section moves now.

Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: offer performance feedback to contributors

Some of us gotten used to producing large quantities of peer feedback
at work, every 3 or 6 months. Extending the same courtesy to community
members seems like a logical step. It may be hard for some folks to
get validation of how important their work is internally, especially
at smaller companies which don't employ many kernel experts.

The concept of "peer feedback" may be a hyperscaler / silicon valley
thing so YMMV. Hopefully we can build more context as we go.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: add a cheat sheet for the rules

Summarize the rules we see broken most often and which may
be less familiar to kernel devs who are used to working outside
of netdev.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: document reverse xmas tree

Similarly to the 15 patch rule the reverse xmas tree is not
documented.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: document that patch series length limit

We had been asking people to avoid massive patch series but it does
not appear in the FAQ.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

docs: netdev: move the netdev-FAQ to the process pages

The documentation for the tip tree is really in quite a similar
spirit to the netdev-FAQ. Move the netdev-FAQ to the process docs
as well.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>