|
@@ -10,27 +10,49 @@ kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar
|
|
|
with "the system." This text is a collection of suggestions which
|
|
|
can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Read Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check
|
|
|
-before submitting code. If you are submitting a driver, also read
|
|
|
-Documentation/SubmittingDrivers.
|
|
|
+This document contains a large number of suggestions in a relatively terse
|
|
|
+format. For detailed information on how the kernel development process
|
|
|
+works, see Documentation/development-process. Also, read
|
|
|
+Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check before
|
|
|
+submitting code. If you are submitting a driver, also read
|
|
|
+Documentation/SubmittingDrivers; for device tree binding patches, read
|
|
|
+Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of these steps describe the default behavior of the git version
|
|
|
control system; if you use git to prepare your patches, you'll find much
|
|
|
of the mechanical work done for you, though you'll still need to prepare
|
|
|
-and document a sensible set of patches.
|
|
|
+and document a sensible set of patches. In general, use of git will make
|
|
|
+your life as a kernel developer easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------
|
|
|
SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+0) Obtain a current source tree
|
|
|
+-------------------------------
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+If you do not have a repository with the current kernel source handy, use
|
|
|
+git to obtain one. You'll want to start with the mainline repository,
|
|
|
+which can be grabbed with:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Note, however, that you may not want to develop against the mainline tree
|
|
|
+directly. Most subsystem maintainers run their own trees and want to see
|
|
|
+patches prepared against those trees. See the "T:" entry for the subsystem
|
|
|
+in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if
|
|
|
+the tree is not listed there.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+It is still possible to download kernel releases via tarballs (as described
|
|
|
+in the next section), but that is the hard way to do kernel development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) "diff -up"
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN" to create patches. git generates patches
|
|
|
-in this form by default; if you're using git, you can skip this section
|
|
|
-entirely.
|
|
|
+If you must generate your patches by hand, use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN"
|
|
|
+to create patches. Git generates patches in this form by default; if
|
|
|
+you're using git, you can skip this section entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
|
|
|
generated by diff(1). When creating your patch, make sure to create it
|
|
@@ -42,7 +64,7 @@ not in any lower subdirectory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- SRCTREE= linux-2.6
|
|
|
+ SRCTREE= linux
|
|
|
MYFILE= drivers/net/mydriver.c
|
|
|
|
|
|
cd $SRCTREE
|
|
@@ -55,17 +77,16 @@ To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
|
|
|
or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a diff against your
|
|
|
own source tree. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- MYSRC= /devel/linux-2.6
|
|
|
+ MYSRC= /devel/linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
- tar xvfz linux-2.6.12.tar.gz
|
|
|
- mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-vanilla
|
|
|
- diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.12-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
|
|
|
- linux-2.6.12-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
|
|
|
+ tar xvfz linux-3.19.tar.gz
|
|
|
+ mv linux-3.19 linux-3.19-vanilla
|
|
|
+ diff -uprN -X linux-3.19-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
|
|
|
+ linux-3.19-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
|
|
|
|
|
|
"dontdiff" is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
|
|
|
the build process, and should be ignored in any diff(1)-generated
|
|
|
-patch. The "dontdiff" file is included in the kernel tree in
|
|
|
-2.6.12 and later.
|
|
|
+patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
|
|
|
belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after-
|
|
@@ -83,6 +104,7 @@ is another popular alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) Describe your changes.
|
|
|
+-------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
|
|
|
5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that
|
|
@@ -124,10 +146,10 @@ See #3, next.
|
|
|
When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
|
|
|
complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
|
|
|
say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
|
|
|
-patch merger to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
|
|
|
+subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
|
|
|
URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
|
|
|
I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
|
|
|
-This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers. Some reviewers
|
|
|
+This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers
|
|
|
probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
|
|
@@ -156,10 +178,15 @@ Example:
|
|
|
platform_set_drvdata(), but left the variable "dev" unused,
|
|
|
delete it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+You should also be sure to use at least the first twelve characters of the
|
|
|
+SHA-1 ID. The kernel repository holds a *lot* of objects, making
|
|
|
+collisions with shorter IDs a real possibility. Bear in mind that, even if
|
|
|
+there is no collision with your six-character ID now, that condition may
|
|
|
+change five years from now.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
|
|
|
git-bisect, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of the
|
|
|
-SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.
|
|
|
-Example:
|
|
|
+SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes: e21d2170f366 ("video: remove unnecessary platform_set_drvdata()")
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -172,8 +199,9 @@ outputting the above style in the git log or git show commands
|
|
|
fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
|
|
|
|
|
|
3) Separate your changes.
|
|
|
+-------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file.
|
|
|
+Separate each _logical change_ into a separate patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
|
|
|
enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
|
|
@@ -184,90 +212,116 @@ On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
|
|
|
group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
|
|
|
is contained within a single patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
|
|
|
+change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
|
|
|
+on its own merits.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
|
|
|
complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
|
|
|
in your patch description.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to
|
|
|
+ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
|
|
|
+series. Developers using "git bisect" to track down a problem can end up
|
|
|
+splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
|
|
|
+introduce bugs in the middle.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
|
|
|
then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-4) Style check your changes.
|
|
|
+4) Style-check your changes.
|
|
|
+----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
|
|
|
found in Documentation/CodingStyle. Failure to do so simply wastes
|
|
|
the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
|
|
|
without even being read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style
|
|
|
-checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). You should
|
|
|
-be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
+One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
|
|
|
+another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in
|
|
|
+the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
|
|
|
+moving the code and your changes. This greatly aids review of the
|
|
|
+actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
|
|
|
+the code itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-5) Select e-mail destination.
|
|
|
+Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
|
|
|
+(scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be
|
|
|
+viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code
|
|
|
+looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code, and determine
|
|
|
-if your change applies to a specific subsystem of the kernel, with
|
|
|
-an assigned maintainer. If so, e-mail that person. The script
|
|
|
-scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step.
|
|
|
+The checker reports at three levels:
|
|
|
+ - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
|
|
|
+ - WARNING: things requiring careful review
|
|
|
+ - CHECK: things requiring thought
|
|
|
|
|
|
-If no maintainer is listed, or the maintainer does not respond, send
|
|
|
-your patch to the primary Linux kernel developer's mailing list,
|
|
|
-linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org. Most kernel developers monitor this
|
|
|
-e-mail list, and can comment on your changes.
|
|
|
+You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
|
|
|
+patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
|
|
|
+5) Select the recipients for your patch.
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
+You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
|
|
|
+to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the
|
|
|
+source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The
|
|
|
+script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step. If you
|
|
|
+cannot find a maintainer for the subsystem your are working on, Andrew
|
|
|
+Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
|
|
|
-Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>.
|
|
|
-He gets a lot of e-mail, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
|
|
|
-sending him e-mail.
|
|
|
+You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy
|
|
|
+of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org functions as a list of
|
|
|
+last resort, but the volume on that list has caused a number of developers
|
|
|
+to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a subsystem-specific
|
|
|
+list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not
|
|
|
+spam unrelated lists, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Patches which are bug fixes, are "obvious" changes, or similarly
|
|
|
-require little discussion should be sent or CC'd to Linus. Patches
|
|
|
-which require discussion or do not have a clear advantage should
|
|
|
-usually be sent first to linux-kernel. Only after the patch is
|
|
|
-discussed should the patch then be submitted to Linus.
|
|
|
+Many kernel-related lists are hosted on vger.kernel.org; you can find a
|
|
|
+list of them at http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html. There are
|
|
|
+kernel-related lists hosted elsewhere as well, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
|
|
|
+Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>.
|
|
|
+He gets a lot of e-mail, and, at this point, very few patches go through
|
|
|
+Linus directly, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
|
|
|
+sending him e-mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-6) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list.
|
|
|
+If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
|
|
|
+to security@kernel.org. For severe bugs, a short embargo may be considered
|
|
|
+to allow distrbutors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
|
|
|
+obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.
|
|
|
+Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed
|
|
|
+toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Other kernel developers besides Linus need to be aware of your change,
|
|
|
-so that they may comment on it and offer code review and suggestions.
|
|
|
-linux-kernel is the primary Linux kernel developer mailing list.
|
|
|
-Other mailing lists are available for specific subsystems, such as
|
|
|
-USB, framebuffer devices, the VFS, the SCSI subsystem, etc. See the
|
|
|
-MAINTAINERS file for a mailing list that relates specifically to
|
|
|
-your change.
|
|
|
+ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Majordomo lists of VGER.KERNEL.ORG at:
|
|
|
- <http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html>
|
|
|
+into your patch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send
|
|
|
-the MAN-PAGES maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file)
|
|
|
-a man-pages patch, or at least a notification of the change,
|
|
|
-so that some information makes its way into the manual pages.
|
|
|
+Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own
|
|
|
+conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees. The networking
|
|
|
+maintainer, in particular, would rather not see individual developers
|
|
|
+adding lines like the above to their patches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #5, make sure to ALWAYS
|
|
|
-copy the maintainer when you change their code.
|
|
|
+If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send the MAN-PAGES
|
|
|
+maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
|
|
|
+least a notification of the change, so that some information makes its way
|
|
|
+into the manual pages. User-space API changes should also be copied to
|
|
|
+linux-api@vger.kernel.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
|
|
|
trivial@kernel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look
|
|
|
into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager.
|
|
|
Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
|
|
|
Spelling fixes in documentation
|
|
|
- Spelling fixes which could break grep(1)
|
|
|
+ Spelling fixes for errors which could break grep(1)
|
|
|
Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
|
|
|
Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
|
|
|
Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
|
|
|
- Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region)
|
|
|
+ Removing use of deprecated functions/macros
|
|
|
Contact detail and documentation fixes
|
|
|
Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific,
|
|
|
since people copy, as long as it's trivial)
|
|
@@ -276,7 +330,8 @@ Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-7) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text.
|
|
|
+6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text.
|
|
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
|
|
|
on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a kernel
|
|
@@ -299,54 +354,48 @@ you to re-send them using MIME.
|
|
|
See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
|
|
|
your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-8) E-mail size.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-When sending patches to Linus, always follow step #7.
|
|
|
+7) E-mail size.
|
|
|
+---------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
|
|
|
maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
|
|
|
it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
|
|
|
-server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.
|
|
|
+server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note
|
|
|
+that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up
|
|
|
+anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+8) Respond to review comments.
|
|
|
+------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
|
|
|
+which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments;
|
|
|
+ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in return. Review comments
|
|
|
+or questions that do not lead to a code change should almost certainly
|
|
|
+bring about a comment or changelog entry so that the next reviewer better
|
|
|
+understands what is going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-9) Name your kernel version.
|
|
|
+Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them
|
|
|
+for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and
|
|
|
+reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond
|
|
|
+politely and address the problems they have pointed out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-It is important to note, either in the subject line or in the patch
|
|
|
-description, the kernel version to which this patch applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-If the patch does not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version,
|
|
|
-Linus will not apply it.
|
|
|
+9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient.
|
|
|
+----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
+After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. Reviewers are
|
|
|
+busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Once upon a time, patches used to disappear into the void without comment,
|
|
|
+but the development process works more smoothly than that now. You should
|
|
|
+receive comments within a week or so; if that does not happen, make sure
|
|
|
+that you have sent your patches to the right place. Wait for a minimum of
|
|
|
+one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers - possibly longer during
|
|
|
+busy times like merge windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-10) Don't get discouraged. Re-submit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. If Linus
|
|
|
-likes your change and applies it, it will appear in the next version
|
|
|
-of the kernel that he releases.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-However, if your change doesn't appear in the next version of the
|
|
|
-kernel, there could be any number of reasons. It's YOUR job to
|
|
|
-narrow down those reasons, correct what was wrong, and submit your
|
|
|
-updated change.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-It is quite common for Linus to "drop" your patch without comment.
|
|
|
-That's the nature of the system. If he drops your patch, it could be
|
|
|
-due to
|
|
|
-* Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version.
|
|
|
-* Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on linux-kernel.
|
|
|
-* A style issue (see section 2).
|
|
|
-* An e-mail formatting issue (re-read this section).
|
|
|
-* A technical problem with your change.
|
|
|
-* He gets tons of e-mail, and yours got lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
-* You are being annoying.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-When in doubt, solicit comments on linux-kernel mailing list.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-11) Include PATCH in the subject
|
|
|
+10) Include PATCH in the subject
|
|
|
+--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
|
|
|
convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets Linus
|
|
@@ -355,7 +404,8 @@ e-mail discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-12) Sign your work
|
|
|
+11) Sign your work
|
|
|
+------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
|
|
|
percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
|
|
@@ -387,11 +437,11 @@ can certify the below:
|
|
|
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
|
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
|
|
|
- are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
|
|
|
- personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
|
|
|
- maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
|
|
|
- this project or the open source license(s) involved.
|
|
|
+ (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
|
|
|
+ are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
|
|
|
+ personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
|
|
|
+ maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
|
|
|
+ this project or the open source license(s) involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
then you just add a line saying
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -401,7 +451,7 @@ using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for
|
|
|
now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
|
|
|
-point out some special detail about the sign-off.
|
|
|
+point out some special detail about the sign-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
|
|
|
modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
|
|
@@ -429,15 +479,15 @@ which appears in the changelog.
|
|
|
Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice
|
|
|
to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
|
|
|
message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
|
|
|
-here's what we see in 2.6-stable :
|
|
|
+here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Date: Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000
|
|
|
+Date: Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400
|
|
|
|
|
|
- SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling
|
|
|
+ libata: Un-break ATA blacklist
|
|
|
|
|
|
- commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream
|
|
|
+ commit 1c40279960bcd7d52dbdf1d466b20d24b99176c8 upstream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-And here's what appears in 2.4 :
|
|
|
+And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -446,18 +496,19 @@ And here's what appears in 2.4 :
|
|
|
[backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
|
|
|
-tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your
|
|
|
+tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your
|
|
|
tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
|
|
|
+12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
|
|
|
+---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
|
|
|
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
|
|
|
patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
|
|
|
-arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
|
|
|
+ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
|
|
|
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
|
|
@@ -465,7 +516,8 @@ maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
|
|
|
Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker
|
|
|
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
|
|
|
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
|
|
|
-into an Acked-by:.
|
|
|
+into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
|
|
|
+explicit ack).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
|
|
|
For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
|
|
@@ -477,11 +529,13 @@ list archives.
|
|
|
If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
|
|
|
provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
|
|
|
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
|
|
|
-person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
|
|
|
-have been included in the discussion
|
|
|
+person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
|
|
|
+patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
|
|
|
+have been included in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
|
|
|
+13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
|
|
|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
|
|
|
hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. Please note that if
|
|
@@ -541,7 +595,13 @@ which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred
|
|
|
method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See #2 above for more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-15) The canonical patch format
|
|
|
+14) The canonical patch format
|
|
|
+------------------------------
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
|
|
|
+that, if you have your patches stored in a git repository, proper patch
|
|
|
+formatting can be had with "git format-patch". The tools cannot create
|
|
|
+the necessary text, though, so read the instructions below anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The canonical patch subject line is:
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -549,7 +609,8 @@ The canonical patch subject line is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
The canonical patch message body contains the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
|
|
|
+ - A "from" line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person
|
|
|
+ sending the patch is not the author).
|
|
|
|
|
|
- An empty line.
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -656,128 +717,63 @@ See more details on the proper patch format in the following
|
|
|
references.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-16) Sending "git pull" requests (from Linus emails)
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Please write the git repo address and branch name alone on the same line
|
|
|
-so that I can't even by mistake pull from the wrong branch, and so
|
|
|
-that a triple-click just selects the whole thing.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-So the proper format is something along the lines of:
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- "Please pull from
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- to get these changes:"
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-so that I don't have to hunt-and-peck for the address and inevitably
|
|
|
-get it wrong (actually, I've only gotten it wrong a few times, and
|
|
|
-checking against the diffstat tells me when I get it wrong, but I'm
|
|
|
-just a lot more comfortable when I don't have to "look for" the right
|
|
|
-thing to pull, and double-check that I have the right branch-name).
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Please use "git diff -M --stat --summary" to generate the diffstat:
|
|
|
-the -M enables rename detection, and the summary enables a summary of
|
|
|
-new/deleted or renamed files.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-With rename detection, the statistics are rather different [...]
|
|
|
-because git will notice that a fair number of the changes are renames.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
-SECTION 2 - HINTS, TIPS, AND TRICKS
|
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-This section lists many of the common "rules" associated with code
|
|
|
-submitted to the kernel. There are always exceptions... but you must
|
|
|
-have a really good reason for doing so. You could probably call this
|
|
|
-section Linus Computer Science 101.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-1) Read Documentation/CodingStyle
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Nuff said. If your code deviates too much from this, it is likely
|
|
|
-to be rejected without further review, and without comment.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
|
|
|
-another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in
|
|
|
-the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
|
|
|
-moving the code and your changes. This greatly aids review of the
|
|
|
-actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
|
|
|
-the code itself.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
|
|
|
-(scripts/checkpatch.pl). The style checker should be viewed as
|
|
|
-a guide not as the final word. If your code looks better with
|
|
|
-a violation then its probably best left alone.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The checker reports at three levels:
|
|
|
- - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
|
|
|
- - WARNING: things requiring careful review
|
|
|
- - CHECK: things requiring thought
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
|
|
|
-patch.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-2) #ifdefs are ugly
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Code cluttered with ifdefs is difficult to read and maintain. Don't do
|
|
|
-it. Instead, put your ifdefs in a header, and conditionally define
|
|
|
-'static inline' functions, or macros, which are used in the code.
|
|
|
-Let the compiler optimize away the "no-op" case.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Simple example, of poor code:
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
- dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
|
|
|
- if (!dev)
|
|
|
- return -ENODEV;
|
|
|
- #ifdef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
|
|
|
- init_funky_net(dev);
|
|
|
- #endif
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Cleaned-up example:
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-(in header)
|
|
|
- #ifndef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
|
|
|
- static inline void init_funky_net (struct net_device *d) {}
|
|
|
- #endif
|
|
|
+15) Sending "git pull" requests
|
|
|
+-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
-(in the code itself)
|
|
|
- dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
|
|
|
- if (!dev)
|
|
|
- return -ENODEV;
|
|
|
- init_funky_net(dev);
|
|
|
+If you have a series of patches, it may be most convenient to have the
|
|
|
+maintainer pull them directly into the subsystem repository with a
|
|
|
+"git pull" operation. Note, however, that pulling patches from a developer
|
|
|
+requires a higher degree of trust than taking patches from a mailing list.
|
|
|
+As a result, many subsystem maintainers are reluctant to take pull
|
|
|
+requests, especially from new, unknown developers. If in doubt you can use
|
|
|
+the pull request as the cover letter for a normal posting of the patch
|
|
|
+series, giving the maintainer the option of using either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+A pull request should have [GIT] or [PULL] in the subject line. The
|
|
|
+request itself should include the repository name and the branch of
|
|
|
+interest on a single line; it should look something like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Please pull from
|
|
|
|
|
|
-3) 'static inline' is better than a macro
|
|
|
+ git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
|
|
|
-They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
|
|
|
-limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
|
|
|
+ to get these changes:"
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
|
|
|
-suboptimal [there are a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
|
|
|
-or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
|
|
|
-string-izing].
|
|
|
+A pull request should also include an overall message saying what will be
|
|
|
+included in the request, a "git shortlog" listing of the patches
|
|
|
+themselves, and a diffstat showing the overall effect of the patch series.
|
|
|
+The easiest way to get all this information together is, of course, to let
|
|
|
+git do it for you with the "git request-pull" command.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-'static inline' is preferred over 'static __inline__', 'extern inline',
|
|
|
-and 'extern __inline__'.
|
|
|
+Some maintainers (including Linus) want to see pull requests from signed
|
|
|
+commits; that increases their confidence that the request actually came
|
|
|
+from you. Linus, in particular, will not pull from public hosting sites
|
|
|
+like GitHub in the absence of a signed tag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+The first step toward creating such tags is to make a GNUPG key and get it
|
|
|
+signed by one or more core kernel developers. This step can be hard for
|
|
|
+new developers, but there is no way around it. Attending conferences can
|
|
|
+be a good way to find developers who can sign your key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Once you have prepared a patch series in git that you wish to have somebody
|
|
|
+pull, create a signed tag with "git tag -s". This will create a new tag
|
|
|
+identifying the last commit in the series and containing a signature
|
|
|
+created with your private key. You will also have the opportunity to add a
|
|
|
+changelog-style message to the tag; this is an ideal place to describe the
|
|
|
+effects of the pull request as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-4) Don't over-design.
|
|
|
+If the tree the maintainer will be pulling from is not the repository you
|
|
|
+are working from, don't forget to push the signed tag explicitly to the
|
|
|
+public tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not
|
|
|
-be useful: "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler."
|
|
|
+When generating your pull request, use the signed tag as the target. A
|
|
|
+command like this will do the trick:
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ git request-pull master git://my.public.tree/linux.git my-signed-tag
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
-SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
|
|
|
+SECTION 2 - REFERENCES
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
|