blob: 36f1dedc944ccf846afe5c58b8b3918c94a13977
1 | .. _submittingpatches: |
2 | |
3 | How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel or Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds |
4 | ========================================================================================= |
5 | |
6 | For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux |
7 | kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar |
8 | with "the system." This text is a collection of suggestions which |
9 | can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted. |
10 | |
11 | This document contains a large number of suggestions in a relatively terse |
12 | format. For detailed information on how the kernel development process |
13 | works, see :ref:`Documentation/development-process <development_process_main>`. |
14 | Also, read :ref:`Documentation/SubmitChecklist <submitchecklist>` |
15 | for a list of items to check before |
16 | submitting code. If you are submitting a driver, also read |
17 | :ref:`Documentation/SubmittingDrivers <submittingdrivers>`; |
18 | for device tree binding patches, read |
19 | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt. |
20 | |
21 | Many of these steps describe the default behavior of the ``git`` version |
22 | control system; if you use ``git`` to prepare your patches, you'll find much |
23 | of the mechanical work done for you, though you'll still need to prepare |
24 | and document a sensible set of patches. In general, use of ``git`` will make |
25 | your life as a kernel developer easier. |
26 | |
27 | Creating and Sending your Change |
28 | ******************************** |
29 | |
30 | |
31 | 0) Obtain a current source tree |
32 | ------------------------------- |
33 | |
34 | If you do not have a repository with the current kernel source handy, use |
35 | ``git`` to obtain one. You'll want to start with the mainline repository, |
36 | which can be grabbed with:: |
37 | |
38 | git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git |
39 | |
40 | Note, however, that you may not want to develop against the mainline tree |
41 | directly. Most subsystem maintainers run their own trees and want to see |
42 | patches prepared against those trees. See the **T:** entry for the subsystem |
43 | in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if |
44 | the tree is not listed there. |
45 | |
46 | It is still possible to download kernel releases via tarballs (as described |
47 | in the next section), but that is the hard way to do kernel development. |
48 | |
49 | 1) ``diff -up`` |
50 | --------------- |
51 | |
52 | If you must generate your patches by hand, use ``diff -up`` or ``diff -uprN`` |
53 | to create patches. Git generates patches in this form by default; if |
54 | you're using ``git``, you can skip this section entirely. |
55 | |
56 | All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as |
57 | generated by :manpage:`diff(1)`. When creating your patch, make sure to |
58 | create it in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the ``-u`` argument |
59 | to :manpage:`diff(1)`. |
60 | Also, please use the ``-p`` argument which shows which C function each |
61 | change is in - that makes the resultant ``diff`` a lot easier to read. |
62 | Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory, |
63 | not in any lower subdirectory. |
64 | |
65 | To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:: |
66 | |
67 | SRCTREE= linux |
68 | MYFILE= drivers/net/mydriver.c |
69 | |
70 | cd $SRCTREE |
71 | cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig |
72 | vi $MYFILE # make your change |
73 | cd .. |
74 | diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch |
75 | |
76 | To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla", |
77 | or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a ``diff`` against your |
78 | own source tree. For example:: |
79 | |
80 | MYSRC= /devel/linux |
81 | |
82 | tar xvfz linux-3.19.tar.gz |
83 | mv linux-3.19 linux-3.19-vanilla |
84 | diff -uprN -X linux-3.19-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \ |
85 | linux-3.19-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch |
86 | |
87 | ``dontdiff`` is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during |
88 | the build process, and should be ignored in any :manpage:`diff(1)`-generated |
89 | patch. |
90 | |
91 | Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not |
92 | belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after- |
93 | generating it with :manpage:`diff(1)`, to ensure accuracy. |
94 | |
95 | If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into |
96 | individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see |
97 | :ref:`split_changes`. This will facilitate review by other kernel developers, |
98 | very important if you want your patch accepted. |
99 | |
100 | If you're using ``git``, ``git rebase -i`` can help you with this process. If |
101 | you're not using ``git``, ``quilt`` <http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt> |
102 | is another popular alternative. |
103 | |
104 | .. _describe_changes: |
105 | |
106 | 2) Describe your changes |
107 | ------------------------ |
108 | |
109 | Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or |
110 | 5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that |
111 | motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a |
112 | problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the |
113 | first paragraph. |
114 | |
115 | Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are |
116 | pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the |
117 | problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think |
118 | it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux |
119 | installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or |
120 | vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches |
121 | from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change |
122 | downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash |
123 | descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc. |
124 | |
125 | Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in |
126 | performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size, |
127 | include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious |
128 | costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU, |
129 | memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between |
130 | different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your |
131 | optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits. |
132 | |
133 | Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing |
134 | about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change |
135 | in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving |
136 | as you intend it to. |
137 | |
138 | The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a |
139 | form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management |
140 | system, ``git``, as a "commit log". See :ref:`explicit_in_reply_to`. |
141 | |
142 | Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get |
143 | long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. |
144 | See :ref:`split_changes`. |
145 | |
146 | When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the |
147 | complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just |
148 | say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the |
149 | subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced |
150 | URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch. |
151 | I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained. |
152 | This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers |
153 | probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch. |
154 | |
155 | Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" |
156 | instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy |
157 | to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change |
158 | its behaviour. |
159 | |
160 | If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by |
161 | number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion, |
162 | give a URL to the mailing list archive; use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ |
163 | redirector with a ``Message-Id``, to ensure that the links cannot become |
164 | stale. |
165 | |
166 | However, try to make your explanation understandable without external |
167 | resources. In addition to giving a URL to a mailing list archive or |
168 | bug, summarize the relevant points of the discussion that led to the |
169 | patch as submitted. |
170 | |
171 | If you want to refer to a specific commit, don't just refer to the |
172 | SHA-1 ID of the commit. Please also include the oneline summary of |
173 | the commit, to make it easier for reviewers to know what it is about. |
174 | Example:: |
175 | |
176 | Commit e21d2170f36602ae2708 ("video: remove unnecessary |
177 | platform_set_drvdata()") removed the unnecessary |
178 | platform_set_drvdata(), but left the variable "dev" unused, |
179 | delete it. |
180 | |
181 | You should also be sure to use at least the first twelve characters of the |
182 | SHA-1 ID. The kernel repository holds a *lot* of objects, making |
183 | collisions with shorter IDs a real possibility. Bear in mind that, even if |
184 | there is no collision with your six-character ID now, that condition may |
185 | change five years from now. |
186 | |
187 | If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using |
188 | ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of |
189 | the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. For example:: |
190 | |
191 | Fixes: e21d2170f366 ("video: remove unnecessary platform_set_drvdata()") |
192 | |
193 | The following ``git config`` settings can be used to add a pretty format for |
194 | outputting the above style in the ``git log`` or ``git show`` commands:: |
195 | |
196 | [core] |
197 | abbrev = 12 |
198 | [pretty] |
199 | fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\") |
200 | |
201 | .. _split_changes: |
202 | |
203 | 3) Separate your changes |
204 | ------------------------ |
205 | |
206 | Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch. |
207 | |
208 | For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance |
209 | enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two |
210 | or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new |
211 | driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches. |
212 | |
213 | On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files, |
214 | group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change |
215 | is contained within a single patch. |
216 | |
217 | The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood |
218 | change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable |
219 | on its own merits. |
220 | |
221 | If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be |
222 | complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"** |
223 | in your patch description. |
224 | |
225 | When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to |
226 | ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the |
227 | series. Developers using ``git bisect`` to track down a problem can end up |
228 | splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you |
229 | introduce bugs in the middle. |
230 | |
231 | If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, |
232 | then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration. |
233 | |
234 | |
235 | |
236 | 4) Style-check your changes |
237 | --------------------------- |
238 | |
239 | Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be |
240 | found in |
241 | :ref:`Documentation/CodingStyle <codingstyle>`. |
242 | Failure to do so simply wastes |
243 | the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably |
244 | without even being read. |
245 | |
246 | One significant exception is when moving code from one file to |
247 | another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in |
248 | the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of |
249 | moving the code and your changes. This greatly aids review of the |
250 | actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of |
251 | the code itself. |
252 | |
253 | Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission |
254 | (scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be |
255 | viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code |
256 | looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone. |
257 | |
258 | The checker reports at three levels: |
259 | - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong |
260 | - WARNING: things requiring careful review |
261 | - CHECK: things requiring thought |
262 | |
263 | You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your |
264 | patch. |
265 | |
266 | |
267 | 5) Select the recipients for your patch |
268 | --------------------------------------- |
269 | |
270 | You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch |
271 | to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the |
272 | source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The |
273 | script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step. If you |
274 | cannot find a maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew |
275 | Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort. |
276 | |
277 | You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy |
278 | of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org functions as a list of |
279 | last resort, but the volume on that list has caused a number of developers |
280 | to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a subsystem-specific |
281 | list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not |
282 | spam unrelated lists, though. |
283 | |
284 | Many kernel-related lists are hosted on vger.kernel.org; you can find a |
285 | list of them at http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html. There are |
286 | kernel-related lists hosted elsewhere as well, though. |
287 | |
288 | Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!! |
289 | |
290 | Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the |
291 | Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>. |
292 | He gets a lot of e-mail, and, at this point, very few patches go through |
293 | Linus directly, so typically you should do your best to -avoid- |
294 | sending him e-mail. |
295 | |
296 | If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch |
297 | to security@kernel.org. For severe bugs, a short embargo may be considered |
298 | to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases, |
299 | obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. |
300 | |
301 | Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed |
302 | toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:: |
303 | |
304 | Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org |
305 | |
306 | into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You |
307 | should also read |
308 | :ref:`Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt <stable_kernel_rules>` |
309 | in addition to this file. |
310 | |
311 | Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own |
312 | conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees. The networking |
313 | maintainer, in particular, would rather not see individual developers |
314 | adding lines like the above to their patches. |
315 | |
316 | If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send the MAN-PAGES |
317 | maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at |
318 | least a notification of the change, so that some information makes its way |
319 | into the manual pages. User-space API changes should also be copied to |
320 | linux-api@vger.kernel.org. |
321 | |
322 | For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey |
323 | trivial@kernel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look |
324 | into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager. |
325 | |
326 | Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules: |
327 | |
328 | - Spelling fixes in documentation |
329 | - Spelling fixes for errors which could break :manpage:`grep(1)` |
330 | - Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad) |
331 | - Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct) |
332 | - Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things) |
333 | - Removing use of deprecated functions/macros |
334 | - Contact detail and documentation fixes |
335 | - Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific, |
336 | since people copy, as long as it's trivial) |
337 | - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey |
338 | in re-transmission mode) |
339 | |
340 | |
341 | |
342 | 6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text |
343 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
344 | |
345 | Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment |
346 | on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a kernel |
347 | developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail |
348 | tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code. |
349 | |
350 | For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline". |
351 | |
352 | .. warning:: |
353 | |
354 | Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch, |
355 | if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch. |
356 | |
357 | Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. |
358 | Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME |
359 | attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your |
360 | code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process, |
361 | decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted. |
362 | |
363 | Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask |
364 | you to re-send them using MIME. |
365 | |
366 | See :ref:`Documentation/email-clients.txt <email_clients>` |
367 | for hints about configuring your e-mail client so that it sends your patches |
368 | untouched. |
369 | |
370 | 7) E-mail size |
371 | -------------- |
372 | |
373 | Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some |
374 | maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size, |
375 | it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible |
376 | server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note |
377 | that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up |
378 | anyway. |
379 | |
380 | 8) Respond to review comments |
381 | ----------------------------- |
382 | |
383 | Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in |
384 | which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments; |
385 | ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in return. Review comments |
386 | or questions that do not lead to a code change should almost certainly |
387 | bring about a comment or changelog entry so that the next reviewer better |
388 | understands what is going on. |
389 | |
390 | Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them |
391 | for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and |
392 | reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond |
393 | politely and address the problems they have pointed out. |
394 | |
395 | |
396 | 9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient |
397 | --------------------------------------- |
398 | |
399 | After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. Reviewers are |
400 | busy people and may not get to your patch right away. |
401 | |
402 | Once upon a time, patches used to disappear into the void without comment, |
403 | but the development process works more smoothly than that now. You should |
404 | receive comments within a week or so; if that does not happen, make sure |
405 | that you have sent your patches to the right place. Wait for a minimum of |
406 | one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers - possibly longer during |
407 | busy times like merge windows. |
408 | |
409 | |
410 | 10) Include PATCH in the subject |
411 | -------------------------------- |
412 | |
413 | Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common |
414 | convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets Linus |
415 | and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other |
416 | e-mail discussions. |
417 | |
418 | |
419 | |
420 | 11) Sign your work |
421 | ------------------ |
422 | |
423 | To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can |
424 | percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several |
425 | layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on |
426 | patches that are being emailed around. |
427 | |
428 | The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the |
429 | patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to |
430 | pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you |
431 | can certify the below: |
432 | |
433 | Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 |
434 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
435 | |
436 | By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: |
437 | |
438 | (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I |
439 | have the right to submit it under the open source license |
440 | indicated in the file; or |
441 | |
442 | (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best |
443 | of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source |
444 | license and I have the right under that license to submit that |
445 | work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part |
446 | by me, under the same open source license (unless I am |
447 | permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated |
448 | in the file; or |
449 | |
450 | (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other |
451 | person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified |
452 | it. |
453 | |
454 | (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution |
455 | are public and that a record of the contribution (including all |
456 | personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is |
457 | maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with |
458 | this project or the open source license(s) involved. |
459 | |
460 | then you just add a line saying:: |
461 | |
462 | Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> |
463 | |
464 | using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) |
465 | |
466 | Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for |
467 | now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just |
468 | point out some special detail about the sign-off. |
469 | |
470 | If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly |
471 | modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not |
472 | exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to |
473 | rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally |
474 | counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust |
475 | the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and |
476 | make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that |
477 | you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating |
478 | the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it |
479 | seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all |
480 | enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that |
481 | you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example:: |
482 | |
483 | Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> |
484 | [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] |
485 | Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org> |
486 | |
487 | This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and |
488 | want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix, |
489 | and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances |
490 | can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one |
491 | which appears in the changelog. |
492 | |
493 | Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice |
494 | to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit |
495 | message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance, |
496 | here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release:: |
497 | |
498 | Date: Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400 |
499 | |
500 | libata: Un-break ATA blacklist |
501 | |
502 | commit 1c40279960bcd7d52dbdf1d466b20d24b99176c8 upstream. |
503 | |
504 | And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported:: |
505 | |
506 | Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200 |
507 | |
508 | wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay |
509 | |
510 | [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a] |
511 | |
512 | Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people |
513 | tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your |
514 | tree. |
515 | |
516 | |
517 | 12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: |
518 | --------------------------------- |
519 | |
520 | The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the |
521 | development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. |
522 | |
523 | If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a |
524 | patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can |
525 | ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. |
526 | |
527 | Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that |
528 | maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. |
529 | |
530 | Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker |
531 | has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch |
532 | mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" |
533 | into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an |
534 | explicit ack). |
535 | |
536 | Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. |
537 | For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from |
538 | one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just |
539 | the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. |
540 | When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing |
541 | list archives. |
542 | |
543 | If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not |
544 | provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch. |
545 | This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the |
546 | person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the |
547 | patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties |
548 | have been included in the discussion. |
549 | |
550 | |
551 | 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: |
552 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
553 | |
554 | The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it |
555 | hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. Please note that if |
556 | the bug was reported in private, then ask for permission first before using the |
557 | Reported-by tag. |
558 | |
559 | A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in |
560 | some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that |
561 | some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for |
562 | future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. |
563 | |
564 | Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found |
565 | acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: |
566 | |
567 | Reviewer's statement of oversight |
568 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
569 | |
570 | By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: |
571 | |
572 | (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to |
573 | evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into |
574 | the mainline kernel. |
575 | |
576 | (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch |
577 | have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied |
578 | with the submitter's response to my comments. |
579 | |
580 | (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this |
581 | submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a |
582 | worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known |
583 | issues which would argue against its inclusion. |
584 | |
585 | (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I |
586 | do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any |
587 | warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated |
588 | purpose or function properly in any given situation. |
589 | |
590 | A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an |
591 | appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious |
592 | technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can |
593 | offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to |
594 | reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been |
595 | done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to |
596 | understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally |
597 | increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. |
598 | |
599 | A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person |
600 | named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this |
601 | tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the |
602 | idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our |
603 | idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the |
604 | future. |
605 | |
606 | A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It |
607 | is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated, which can help |
608 | review a bug fix. This tag also assists the stable kernel team in determining |
609 | which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred |
610 | method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes` |
611 | for more details. |
612 | |
613 | |
614 | 14) The canonical patch format |
615 | ------------------------------ |
616 | |
617 | This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note |
618 | that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch |
619 | formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create |
620 | the necessary text, though, so read the instructions below anyway. |
621 | |
622 | The canonical patch subject line is:: |
623 | |
624 | Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase |
625 | |
626 | The canonical patch message body contains the following: |
627 | |
628 | - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person |
629 | sending the patch is not the author). |
630 | |
631 | - An empty line. |
632 | |
633 | - The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which will |
634 | be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch. |
635 | |
636 | - The ``Signed-off-by:`` lines, described above, which will |
637 | also go in the changelog. |
638 | |
639 | - A marker line containing simply ``---``. |
640 | |
641 | - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. |
642 | |
643 | - The actual patch (``diff`` output). |
644 | |
645 | The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails |
646 | alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will |
647 | support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded, |
648 | the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same. |
649 | |
650 | The ``subsystem`` in the email's Subject should identify which |
651 | area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched. |
652 | |
653 | The ``summary phrase`` in the email's Subject should concisely |
654 | describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary |
655 | phrase`` should not be a filename. Do not use the same ``summary |
656 | phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch |
657 | series`` is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches). |
658 | |
659 | Bear in mind that the ``summary phrase`` of your email becomes a |
660 | globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way |
661 | into the ``git`` changelog. The ``summary phrase`` may later be used in |
662 | developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to |
663 | google for the ``summary phrase`` to read discussion regarding that |
664 | patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see |
665 | when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps |
666 | thousands of patches using tools such as ``gitk`` or ``git log |
667 | --oneline``. |
668 | |
669 | For these reasons, the ``summary`` must be no more than 70-75 |
670 | characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well |
671 | as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both |
672 | succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary |
673 | should do. |
674 | |
675 | The ``summary phrase`` may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square |
676 | brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>". The tags are |
677 | not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch |
678 | should be treated. Common tags might include a version descriptor if |
679 | the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to |
680 | comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for |
681 | comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual |
682 | patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4. This assures |
683 | that developers understand the order in which the patches should be |
684 | applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in |
685 | the patch series. |
686 | |
687 | A couple of example Subjects:: |
688 | |
689 | Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching |
690 | Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking |
691 | |
692 | The ``from`` line must be the very first line in the message body, |
693 | and has the form: |
694 | |
695 | From: Original Author <author@example.com> |
696 | |
697 | The ``from`` line specifies who will be credited as the author of the |
698 | patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing, |
699 | then the ``From:`` line from the email header will be used to determine |
700 | the patch author in the changelog. |
701 | |
702 | The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source |
703 | changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long |
704 | since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might |
705 | have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the |
706 | patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is |
707 | especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs |
708 | looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure, |
709 | it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just |
710 | enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find |
711 | it. As in the ``summary phrase``, it is important to be both succinct as |
712 | well as descriptive. |
713 | |
714 | The ``---`` marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch |
715 | handling tools where the changelog message ends. |
716 | |
717 | One good use for the additional comments after the ``---`` marker is for |
718 | a ``diffstat``, to show what files have changed, and the number of |
719 | inserted and deleted lines per file. A ``diffstat`` is especially useful |
720 | on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the |
721 | maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go |
722 | here. A good example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs`` |
723 | which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the |
724 | patch. |
725 | |
726 | If you are going to include a ``diffstat`` after the ``---`` marker, please |
727 | use ``diffstat`` options ``-p 1 -w 70`` so that filenames are listed from |
728 | the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal |
729 | space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation). (``git`` |
730 | generates appropriate diffstats by default.) |
731 | |
732 | See more details on the proper patch format in the following |
733 | references. |
734 | |
735 | .. _explicit_in_reply_to: |
736 | |
737 | 15) Explicit In-Reply-To headers |
738 | -------------------------------- |
739 | |
740 | It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch |
741 | (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with |
742 | previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with |
743 | the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally |
744 | best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the |
745 | series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an |
746 | unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is |
747 | helpful, you can use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in |
748 | the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series. |
749 | |
750 | |
751 | 16) Sending ``git pull`` requests |
752 | --------------------------------- |
753 | |
754 | If you have a series of patches, it may be most convenient to have the |
755 | maintainer pull them directly into the subsystem repository with a |
756 | ``git pull`` operation. Note, however, that pulling patches from a developer |
757 | requires a higher degree of trust than taking patches from a mailing list. |
758 | As a result, many subsystem maintainers are reluctant to take pull |
759 | requests, especially from new, unknown developers. If in doubt you can use |
760 | the pull request as the cover letter for a normal posting of the patch |
761 | series, giving the maintainer the option of using either. |
762 | |
763 | A pull request should have [GIT] or [PULL] in the subject line. The |
764 | request itself should include the repository name and the branch of |
765 | interest on a single line; it should look something like:: |
766 | |
767 | Please pull from |
768 | |
769 | git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus |
770 | |
771 | to get these changes: |
772 | |
773 | A pull request should also include an overall message saying what will be |
774 | included in the request, a ``git shortlog`` listing of the patches |
775 | themselves, and a ``diffstat`` showing the overall effect of the patch series. |
776 | The easiest way to get all this information together is, of course, to let |
777 | ``git`` do it for you with the ``git request-pull`` command. |
778 | |
779 | Some maintainers (including Linus) want to see pull requests from signed |
780 | commits; that increases their confidence that the request actually came |
781 | from you. Linus, in particular, will not pull from public hosting sites |
782 | like GitHub in the absence of a signed tag. |
783 | |
784 | The first step toward creating such tags is to make a GNUPG key and get it |
785 | signed by one or more core kernel developers. This step can be hard for |
786 | new developers, but there is no way around it. Attending conferences can |
787 | be a good way to find developers who can sign your key. |
788 | |
789 | Once you have prepared a patch series in ``git`` that you wish to have somebody |
790 | pull, create a signed tag with ``git tag -s``. This will create a new tag |
791 | identifying the last commit in the series and containing a signature |
792 | created with your private key. You will also have the opportunity to add a |
793 | changelog-style message to the tag; this is an ideal place to describe the |
794 | effects of the pull request as a whole. |
795 | |
796 | If the tree the maintainer will be pulling from is not the repository you |
797 | are working from, don't forget to push the signed tag explicitly to the |
798 | public tree. |
799 | |
800 | When generating your pull request, use the signed tag as the target. A |
801 | command like this will do the trick:: |
802 | |
803 | git request-pull master git://my.public.tree/linux.git my-signed-tag |
804 | |
805 | |
806 | REFERENCES |
807 | ********** |
808 | |
809 | Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). |
810 | <http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt> |
811 | |
812 | Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format". |
813 | <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> |
814 | |
815 | Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer". |
816 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer.html> |
817 | |
818 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-02.html> |
819 | |
820 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-03.html> |
821 | |
822 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-04.html> |
823 | |
824 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-05.html> |
825 | |
826 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-06.html> |
827 | |
828 | NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people! |
829 | <https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336> |
830 | |
831 | Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle: |
832 | :ref:`Documentation/CodingStyle <codingstyle>` |
833 | |
834 | Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: |
835 | <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183> |
836 | |
837 | Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches" |
838 | Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in. |
839 | |
840 | http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf |
841 | |
842 |