Blame view
Documentation/SubmittingPatches
35.7 KB
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel or Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux 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. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
12 13 14 15 16 |
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 |
082bd1ca9 Docs: Mention dev... |
17 18 |
Documentation/SubmittingDrivers; for device tree binding patches, read Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
19 |
|
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
20 21 22 |
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 |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
23 24 |
and document a sensible set of patches. In general, use of git will make your life as a kernel developer easier. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
25 26 27 28 |
-------------------------------------------- SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE -------------------------------------------- |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
46 47 48 |
1) "diff -up" ------------ |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
49 50 51 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 |
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 in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1). Also, please use the '-p' argument which shows which C function each change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read. Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory, not in any lower subdirectory. To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do: |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
62 |
SRCTREE= linux |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 |
MYFILE= drivers/net/mydriver.c cd $SRCTREE cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig vi $MYFILE # make your change cd .. diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch 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: |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
74 |
MYSRC= /devel/linux |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
75 |
|
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
76 77 78 79 |
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 |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
80 81 82 |
"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 |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
83 |
patch. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
84 85 86 |
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- |
013542caa Doc: fix trivial ... |
87 |
generating it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
88 |
|
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
89 90 |
If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see section |
6e7ac7b4a SubmittingPatches... |
91 |
#3. This will facilitate review by other kernel developers, |
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
92 |
very important if you want your patch accepted. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
93 |
|
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
94 95 96 |
If you're using git, "git rebase -i" can help you with this process. If you're not using git, quilt <http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt> is another popular alternative. |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
97 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
98 99 |
2) Describe your changes. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
100 |
------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
101 |
|
7b9828d44 Documentation: Su... |
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 |
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 motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the first paragraph. Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc. Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size, include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU, memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits. Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving as you intend it to. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
130 |
|
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
131 132 133 |
The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below. |
7b9828d44 Documentation: Su... |
134 135 136 |
Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. See #3, next. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
137 |
|
d89b1945b SubmittingPatches... |
138 139 140 |
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 |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
141 |
subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced |
d89b1945b SubmittingPatches... |
142 143 |
URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch. I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
144 |
This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers |
d89b1945b SubmittingPatches... |
145 |
probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch. |
74a475ace SubmittingPatches... |
146 147 148 149 |
Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change its behaviour. |
d89b1945b SubmittingPatches... |
150 |
If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by |
9547c706d SubmittingPatches... |
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 |
number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion, give a URL to the mailing list archive; use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector with a Message-Id, to ensure that the links cannot become stale. However, try to make your explanation understandable without external resources. In addition to giving a URL to a mailing list archive or bug, summarize the relevant points of the discussion that led to the patch as submitted. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
160 |
|
0af527032 Documentation/Sub... |
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 |
If you want to refer to a specific commit, don't just refer to the SHA-1 ID of the commit. Please also include the oneline summary of the commit, to make it easier for reviewers to know what it is about. Example: Commit e21d2170f36602ae2708 ("video: remove unnecessary platform_set_drvdata()") removed the unnecessary platform_set_drvdata(), but left the variable "dev" unused, delete it. |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
170 171 172 173 174 |
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. |
8401aa1f5 Documentation/Sub... |
175 176 |
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 |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
177 |
SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. For example: |
8401aa1f5 Documentation/Sub... |
178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 |
Fixes: e21d2170f366 ("video: remove unnecessary platform_set_drvdata()") The following git-config settings can be used to add a pretty format for outputting the above style in the git log or git show commands [core] abbrev = 12 [pretty] fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\") |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
188 189 |
3) Separate your changes. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
190 |
------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
191 |
|
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
192 |
Separate each _logical change_ into a separate patch. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 |
For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches. 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. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
202 203 204 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
205 206 207 |
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. |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
208 209 210 211 212 |
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. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
213 214 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
215 |
|
6de16eba6 Docs: Remove "tip... |
216 217 |
4) Style-check your changes. ---------------------------- |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
218 219 220 |
Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be found in Documentation/CodingStyle. Failure to do so simply wastes |
f56d35e7a Documentation: Fi... |
221 |
the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
222 |
without even being read. |
6de16eba6 Docs: Remove "tip... |
223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 |
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). 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. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
234 |
|
6de16eba6 Docs: Remove "tip... |
235 236 237 238 |
The checker reports at three levels: - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong - WARNING: things requiring careful review - CHECK: things requiring thought |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
239 |
|
6de16eba6 Docs: Remove "tip... |
240 241 |
You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
242 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
243 244 |
5) Select the recipients for your patch. ---------------------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
245 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
246 247 248 249 |
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 |
d6eff078e SubmittingPatches... |
250 |
cannot find a maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
251 |
Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
252 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
253 254 255 256 257 258 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
259 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
260 261 262 |
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. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
263 264 |
Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!! |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
265 |
Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the |
e00bfcbf0 Documentation/Sub... |
266 |
Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>. |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
267 268 |
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- |
e00bfcbf0 Documentation/Sub... |
269 |
sending him e-mail. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
270 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
271 272 |
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 |
253508cad fix typo in Docum... |
273 |
to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases, |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
274 |
obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
275 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
276 277 |
Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this: |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
278 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
279 |
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
280 |
|
8cda4c3ad SubmittingPatches... |
281 282 283 |
into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You should also read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt in addition to this file. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
284 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
285 286 287 288 |
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. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
289 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
290 291 292 293 294 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
295 296 |
For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey |
82d27b2b2 trivial: remove t... |
297 298 299 |
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: |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
300 |
Spelling fixes in documentation |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
301 |
Spelling fixes for errors which could break grep(1) |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
302 303 304 |
Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad) Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct) Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things) |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
305 |
Removing use of deprecated functions/macros |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
306 307 308 |
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) |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
309 |
Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
310 |
in re-transmission mode) |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
311 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
312 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
313 |
6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
314 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
315 316 317 318 319 |
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 developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code. |
bdc892137 SubmittingPatches... |
320 |
For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline". |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 |
WARNING: Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch, if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch. Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process, decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted. Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask you to re-send them using MIME. |
097091c0a Documentation: me... |
332 333 |
See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
334 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
335 |
7) E-mail size. |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
336 |
--------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
337 338 |
Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some |
4932be778 docs: update patc... |
339 |
maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size, |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
340 |
it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
341 342 343 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
344 |
|
0eea23143 Docs: SubmittingP... |
345 346 |
8) Respond to review comments. ------------------------------ |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
347 |
|
0eea23143 Docs: SubmittingP... |
348 349 350 351 352 353 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
354 |
|
0eea23143 Docs: SubmittingP... |
355 356 357 358 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
359 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
360 |
|
0eea23143 Docs: SubmittingP... |
361 362 |
9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient. ---------------------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
363 |
|
0eea23143 Docs: SubmittingP... |
364 365 |
After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. Reviewers are busy people and may not get to your patch right away. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
366 |
|
0eea23143 Docs: SubmittingP... |
367 368 369 370 371 372 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
373 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
374 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
375 |
10) Include PATCH in the subject |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
376 |
-------------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
377 378 379 380 381 |
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 and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other e-mail discussions. |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
382 |
11) Sign your work |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
383 |
------------------ |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 |
To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on patches that are being emailed around. The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to |
db12fb833 Documentation: fi... |
392 |
pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
393 |
can certify the below: |
cbd83da82 Update DCO ("sign... |
394 |
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 |
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it. |
e00bfcbf0 Documentation/Sub... |
413 414 415 416 417 |
(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. |
cbd83da82 Update DCO ("sign... |
418 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
419 |
then you just add a line saying |
9fd5559c1 [PATCH] DCO: use ... |
420 |
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
421 |
|
af45f32d2 [PATCH] We can no... |
422 |
using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
423 424 |
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 |
e00bfcbf0 Documentation/Sub... |
425 |
point out some special detail about the sign-off. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
426 |
|
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 |
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 exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example : Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org> |
305af08c5 doc: replace "pra... |
443 |
This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
444 445 446 447 |
want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix, and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one which appears in the changelog. |
305af08c5 doc: replace "pra... |
448 |
Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
449 450 |
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, |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
451 |
here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release: |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
452 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
453 |
Date: Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400 |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
454 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
455 |
libata: Un-break ATA blacklist |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
456 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
457 |
commit 1c40279960bcd7d52dbdf1d466b20d24b99176c8 upstream. |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
458 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
459 |
And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported: |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 |
Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200 wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a] Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
468 |
tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
469 |
tree. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
470 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
471 |
12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
472 |
--------------------------------- |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
473 |
|
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
474 475 476 477 478 |
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 |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
479 |
ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. |
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
480 481 482 483 484 485 486 |
Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that 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" |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
487 488 |
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an explicit ack). |
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
489 490 491 492 493 |
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 one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
494 |
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing |
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
495 |
list archives. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
496 497 498 |
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 |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
499 500 501 |
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. |
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
502 |
|
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
503 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
504 |
13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: |
d00c45596 Docs: SubmittingP... |
505 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
bbb0a4247 Document Reported... |
506 |
|
d75ef707e Documentation/Sub... |
507 508 509 510 |
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 the bug was reported in private, then ask for permission first before using the Reported-by tag. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 |
A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: Reviewer's statement of oversight By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with the submitter's response to my comments. (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its inclusion. (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any given situation. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally |
5801da1b2 SubmittingPatches... |
549 |
increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
550 |
|
8543ae129 checkpatch: add S... |
551 552 553 554 555 556 |
A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future. |
8401aa1f5 Documentation/Sub... |
557 558 559 560 561 |
A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated, which can help review a bug fix. This tag also assists the stable kernel team in determining 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. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
562 |
|
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
563 |
14) The canonical patch format |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
564 565 566 567 568 569 |
------------------------------ 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. |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
570 |
|
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
571 |
The canonical patch subject line is: |
d6b9acc0c [PATCH] Document ... |
572 |
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
573 574 |
The canonical patch message body contains the following: |
ccae8616e Docs: Update reci... |
575 576 |
- A "from" line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author). |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
577 578 |
- An empty line. |
2a076f40d checkpatch, Submi... |
579 580 |
- The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which will be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch. |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 |
- The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will also go in the changelog. - A marker line containing simply "---". - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. - The actual patch (diff output). The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded, the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same. |
d6b9acc0c [PATCH] Document ... |
595 596 597 598 599 600 |
The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched. The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely describe the patch which that email contains. The "summary phrase" should not be a filename. Do not use the same "summary |
66effdc6a doc: what a patch... |
601 602 |
phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches). |
d6b9acc0c [PATCH] Document ... |
603 |
|
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 |
Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes a globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way into the git changelog. The "summary phrase" may later be used in developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to google for the "summary phrase" to read discussion regarding that patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps thousands of patches using tools such as "gitk" or "git log --oneline". For these reasons, the "summary" must be no more than 70-75 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary should do. The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square |
e12d74623 SubmittingPatches... |
621 622 |
brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>". The tags are not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch |
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 |
should be treated. Common tags might include a version descriptor if the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4. This assures that developers understand the order in which the patches should be applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in the patch series. |
d6b9acc0c [PATCH] Document ... |
631 632 |
A couple of example Subjects: |
e12d74623 SubmittingPatches... |
633 634 |
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 |
The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body, and has the form: From: Original Author <author@example.com> The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing, then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine the patch author in the changelog. The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might |
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 |
have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure, it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find it. As in the "summary phrase", it is important to be both succinct as well as descriptive. |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
657 658 659 660 661 |
The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch handling tools where the changelog message ends. One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for |
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 |
a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of inserted and deleted lines per file. A diffstat is especially useful on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go here. A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs" which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the patch. If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal |
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
673 674 |
space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation). (git generates appropriate diffstats by default.) |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
675 676 677 |
See more details on the proper patch format in the following references. |
d7ac8d85d Documentation/Sub... |
678 679 680 681 |
15) Explicit In-Reply-To headers -------------------------------- It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch |
6ac9937c9 SubmittingPatches... |
682 |
(e.g., when using "git send-email") to associate the patch with |
d7ac8d85d Documentation/Sub... |
683 684 685 686 687 688 689 |
previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is helpful, you can use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series. |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
690 |
|
d7ac8d85d Documentation/Sub... |
691 |
16) Sending "git pull" requests |
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
692 |
------------------------------- |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
693 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
694 695 696 697 698 |
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 |
b792ffe46 Docs: SubmittingP... |
699 700 701 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
702 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
703 704 705 |
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: |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
706 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
707 |
Please pull from |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
708 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
709 |
git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
710 |
|
64e32895f SubmittingPatches... |
711 |
to get these changes: |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
712 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
713 714 715 716 717 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
718 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
719 720 721 722 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
723 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
724 725 726 727 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
728 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
729 730 731 732 733 734 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
735 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
736 737 738 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
739 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
740 741 |
When generating your pull request, use the signed tag as the target. A command like this will do the trick: |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
742 |
|
7994cc15d Docs: Bring Submi... |
743 |
git request-pull master git://my.public.tree/linux.git my-signed-tag |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
744 745 746 |
---------------------- |
6de16eba6 Docs: Remove "tip... |
747 |
SECTION 2 - REFERENCES |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
748 749 750 |
---------------------- Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). |
37c703f40 Documentation/Sub... |
751 |
<http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
752 |
|
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
753 |
Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format". |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
754 |
<http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
755 |
Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer". |
f5039935a Documentation: up... |
756 757 758 759 760 |
<http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer.html> <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-02.html> <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-03.html> <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-04.html> <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-05.html> |
7e0dae61e Documentation: ne... |
761 |
<http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-06.html> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
762 |
|
bc7455fa3 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
763 |
NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people! |
37c703f40 Documentation/Sub... |
764 |
<https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
765 |
|
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
766 |
Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle: |
60498bb58 SubmittingPatches... |
767 |
<Documentation/CodingStyle> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
768 |
|
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
769 |
Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
770 |
<http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183> |
9536727ef SubmittingPatches... |
771 772 |
Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches" |
25985edce Fix common misspe... |
773 |
Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in. |
9536727ef SubmittingPatches... |
774 |
http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
775 |
-- |