Blame view
Documentation/SubmittingPatches
30.2 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. |
bc7455fa3 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
12 13 14 |
Read Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check before submitting code. If you are submitting a driver, also read Documentation/SubmittingDrivers. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
15 |
|
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
16 17 18 19 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 |
-------------------------------------------- SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE -------------------------------------------- 1) "diff -up" ------------ |
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
29 30 31 |
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 |
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 |
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: |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
42 |
SRCTREE= linux-2.6 |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 |
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: |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
54 |
MYSRC= /devel/linux-2.6 |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
55 |
|
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
56 57 58 59 |
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 |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
60 61 62 |
"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 |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
63 |
patch. The "dontdiff" file is included in the kernel tree in |
755727b7f Randy has moved |
64 |
2.6.12 and later. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
65 66 67 68 |
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- generated it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy. |
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
69 70 71 72 |
If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see section #3. This will facilitate easier reviewing by other kernel developers, very important if you want your patch accepted. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
73 |
|
8e3072a23 SubmittingPatches... |
74 75 76 |
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... |
77 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 |
2) Describe your changes. Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes. Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply." |
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
86 87 88 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
89 90 |
If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. See #3, next. |
d89b1945b SubmittingPatches... |
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 |
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 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 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch. |
74a475ace SubmittingPatches... |
99 100 101 102 |
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... |
103 |
If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by |
9547c706d SubmittingPatches... |
104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 |
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 |
113 |
|
0af527032 Documentation/Sub... |
114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
123 124 |
3) Separate your changes. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
125 |
Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 |
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. 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. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
139 140 |
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 |
141 |
|
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
142 143 144 145 |
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 |
f56d35e7a Documentation: Fi... |
146 |
the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
147 148 149 |
without even being read. At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style |
a570ab6f1 fix typo in Docum... |
150 |
checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). You should |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
151 152 153 154 155 |
be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch. 5) Select e-mail destination. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
156 157 158 |
Look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code, and determine if your change applies to a specific subsystem of the kernel, with |
e52d2e1f2 Documentation/Sub... |
159 160 |
an assigned maintainer. If so, e-mail that person. The script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
161 162 163 164 165 |
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. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
166 167 |
Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!! |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
168 |
Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the |
99ddcc7ed Change Linus' ema... |
169 170 171 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
172 173 174 175 176 177 |
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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
178 |
|
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
179 |
6) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 |
Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org. 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. |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
190 191 |
Majordomo lists of VGER.KERNEL.ORG at: <http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html> |
1caf1f0f1 [PATCH] plug MAN-... |
192 193 194 195 |
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. |
8103b5cc6 trivial: Submitti... |
196 |
Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #5, make sure to ALWAYS |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
197 198 199 |
copy the maintainer when you change their code. For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey |
82d27b2b2 trivial: remove t... |
200 201 202 |
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 |
203 |
Spelling fixes in documentation |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
204 |
Spelling fixes which could break grep(1) |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
205 206 207 |
Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad) Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct) Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things) |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
208 |
Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region) |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
209 210 211 |
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... |
212 |
Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
213 |
in re-transmission mode) |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
214 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
215 |
|
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
216 |
7) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 |
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. For this reason, all patches should be submitting e-mail "inline". 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... |
235 236 |
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 |
237 |
|
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
238 |
8) E-mail size. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
239 |
|
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
240 |
When sending patches to Linus, always follow step #7. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
241 242 |
Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some |
4932be778 docs: update patc... |
243 |
maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size, |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
244 245 |
it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
246 |
9) Name your kernel version. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
247 248 249 250 251 252 |
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. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
253 |
10) Don't get discouraged. Re-submit. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 |
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 |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
267 |
* Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
268 |
* Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on linux-kernel. |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
269 270 271 272 273 |
* 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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
274 275 |
When in doubt, solicit comments on linux-kernel mailing list. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
276 |
11) Include PATCH in the subject |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
277 278 279 280 281 |
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. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
282 |
12) Sign your work |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 |
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... |
291 |
pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
292 |
can certify the below: |
cbd83da82 Update DCO ("sign... |
293 |
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 |
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. |
cbd83da82 Update DCO ("sign... |
312 313 314 315 316 |
(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. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
317 |
then you just add a line saying |
9fd5559c1 [PATCH] DCO: use ... |
318 |
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
319 |
|
af45f32d2 [PATCH] We can no... |
320 |
using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
321 322 323 |
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. |
adbd5886d doc: add suggesti... |
324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 |
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> This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and 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. Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise 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 : Date: Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000 SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream And here's what appears in 2.4 : 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 tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your tree. |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
369 |
|
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
370 |
13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc: |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
371 |
|
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 |
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. 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" into an Acked-by:. 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... |
391 |
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing |
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
392 |
list archives. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
393 394 395 396 397 |
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 |
0f44cd23a document Acked-by: |
398 |
|
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
399 |
|
8543ae129 checkpatch: add S... |
400 |
14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by: and Suggested-by: |
bbb0a4247 Document Reported... |
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 |
If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution. Please note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 |
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... |
446 |
increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
447 |
|
8543ae129 checkpatch: add S... |
448 449 450 451 452 453 |
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. |
ef40203a0 Fill out informat... |
454 455 |
15) The canonical patch format |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
456 |
|
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
457 |
The canonical patch subject line is: |
d6b9acc0c [PATCH] Document ... |
458 |
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 |
The canonical patch message body contains the following: - A "from" line specifying the patch author. - An empty line. - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch. - 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 ... |
482 483 484 485 486 487 |
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... |
488 489 |
phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches). |
d6b9acc0c [PATCH] Document ... |
490 |
|
2ae19acaa Documentation: Ad... |
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 |
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 brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>". The tags are not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch 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 ... |
518 519 520 521 522 |
A couple of example Subjects: Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 |
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... |
537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 |
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 ... |
545 546 547 548 549 |
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... |
550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 |
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... |
561 562 |
space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation). (git generates appropriate diffstats by default.) |
75f8426c1 [PATCH] Document ... |
563 564 565 |
See more details on the proper patch format in the following references. |
148636177 SubmittingPatches... |
566 |
16) Sending "git pull" requests (from Linus emails) |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
567 |
|
148636177 SubmittingPatches... |
568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 |
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. |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
593 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 |
----------------------------------- 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. |
5ab3bd578 fix typo in Submi... |
609 610 |
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 |
de7d4f0e1 update checkpatch... |
611 612 613 614 |
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. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
615 |
Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission |
de7d4f0e1 update checkpatch... |
616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 |
(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. |
0a920b5b6 add a trivial pat... |
627 |
|
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 |
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 (in the code itself) dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private)); if (!dev) return -ENODEV; init_funky_net(dev); 3) 'static inline' is better than a macro 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. Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly |
f2b2ea692 doc: fix typo in ... |
668 |
suboptimal [there are a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths], |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 |
or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as string-izing]. 'static inline' is preferred over 'static __inline__', 'extern inline', and 'extern __inline__'. 4) Don't over-design. Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not |
84da7c084 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
680 |
be useful: "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler." |
1da177e4c Linux-2.6.12-rc2 |
681 |
|
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
682 683 684 685 686 687 688 |
---------------------- SECTION 3 - REFERENCES ---------------------- Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). |
37c703f40 Documentation/Sub... |
689 |
<http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
690 |
|
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
691 |
Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format". |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
692 |
<http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> |
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
693 |
Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer". |
f5039935a Documentation: up... |
694 695 696 697 698 |
<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> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
699 |
|
bc7455fa3 [PATCH] Doc/Submi... |
700 |
NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people! |
37c703f40 Documentation/Sub... |
701 |
<https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
702 |
|
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
703 |
Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle: |
4db29c176 HOWTO: latest lxr... |
704 |
<http://users.sosdg.org/~qiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle> |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
705 |
|
8e9cb8fda [PATCH] Submittin... |
706 |
Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
707 |
<http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183> |
9536727ef SubmittingPatches... |
708 709 |
Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches" |
25985edce Fix common misspe... |
710 |
Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in. |
9536727ef SubmittingPatches... |
711 |
http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf |
5b0ed2c64 [PATCH] docs: upd... |
712 |
-- |