SubmittingPatches 35.1 KB
Newer Older
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

	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.

13 14 15 16 17
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
18 19
Documentation/SubmittingDrivers; for device tree binding patches, read
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
20

21 22 23
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
24 25
and document a sensible set of patches.  In general, use of git will make
your life as a kernel developer easier.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
26 27 28 29 30 31

--------------------------------------------
SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
--------------------------------------------


32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
49 50 51 52

1) "diff -up"
------------

53 54 55
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

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:

67
	SRCTREE= linux
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
	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:

80
	MYSRC= /devel/linux
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
81

82 83 84 85
	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
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
86 87 88

"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
89
patch.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
90 91 92 93 94

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.

95 96
If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into
individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see section
97
#3.  This will facilitate review by other kernel developers,
98
very important if you want your patch accepted.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
99

100 101 102
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.
103 104


L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
105 106

2) Describe your changes.
107
-------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
108

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
137

138 139 140 141
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.

142 143 144
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
145

146 147 148
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
149
subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
150 151
URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
152
This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers.  Some reviewers
153 154
probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.

155 156 157 158 159
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.

160
If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
170

171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
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.

181 182 183 184 185 186
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.

187 188
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
189
SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.  For example:
190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

	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\")
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
200 201

3) Separate your changes.
202
-------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
203

204
Separate each _logical change_ into a separate patch.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214

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.

215 216 217 218
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.

L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
219 220 221 222
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.

223 224 225 226 227 228
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.

229 230 231 232
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.


L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
233

234 235
4) Style-check your changes.
----------------------------
236 237 238

Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
found in Documentation/CodingStyle.  Failure to do so simply wastes
239
the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
240 241
without even being read.

242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252
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.
253

254 255 256 257
The checker reports at three levels:
 - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
 - WARNING: things requiring careful review
 - CHECK: things requiring thought
258

259 260
You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
patch.
261 262


263 264
5) Select the recipients for your patch.
----------------------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
265

266 267 268 269
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
270
cannot find a maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew
271
Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
272

273 274 275 276 277 278
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
279

280 281 282
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.
283 284 285

Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!

L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
286
Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
287
Linux kernel.  His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>.
288 289
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-
290
sending him e-mail.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
291

292 293 294 295
If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
to security@kernel.org.  For severe bugs, a short embargo may be considered
to allow distrbutors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
296

297 298
Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed
toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
299

300
  Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
301

302 303 304
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
305

306 307 308 309
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.
310

311 312 313 314 315
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. 
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
316 317

For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
318 319 320
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:
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
321
 Spelling fixes in documentation
322
 Spelling fixes for errors which could break grep(1)
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
323 324 325
 Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
 Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
 Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
326
 Removing use of deprecated functions/macros
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
327 328 329
 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)
330
 Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
331
 in re-transmission mode)
332

L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
333 334


335
6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
336
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
337 338 339 340 341 342

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.

343
For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline".
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355
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.

356 357
See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
358

359
7) E-mail size.
360
---------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
361 362

Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
363
maintainers.  If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
364
it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
365 366 367
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
368

369 370
8) Respond to review comments.
------------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
371

372 373 374 375 376 377
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
378

379 380 381 382
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
383 384


385 386
9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient.
----------------------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
387

388 389
After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait.  Reviewers are
busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
390

391 392 393 394 395 396
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
397 398


399
10) Include PATCH in the subject
400
--------------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408

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.



409
11) Sign your work
410
------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418

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
419
pass it on as an open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
420 421
can certify the below:

422
        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441

        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.

442 443 444 445 446
        (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.
447

L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
448 449
then you just add a line saying

450
	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
451

452 453
using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)

L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
454 455
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
456
point out some special detail about the sign-off.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
457

458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474
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>

475
This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
476 477 478 479 480
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.

481
Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice
482 483
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,
484
here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release:
485

486
Date:   Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400
487

488
    libata: Un-break ATA blacklist
489

490
    commit 1c40279960bcd7d52dbdf1d466b20d24b99176c8 upstream.
491

492
And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported:
493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500

    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
501
tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your
502 503
tree.

L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
504

505
12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
506
---------------------------------
507

A
Andrew Morton 已提交
508 509 510 511 512
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
513
ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
A
Andrew Morton 已提交
514 515 516 517 518 519 520

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"
521 522
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
explicit ack).
A
Andrew Morton 已提交
523 524 525 526 527

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.
528
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
A
Andrew Morton 已提交
529 530
list archives.

531 532 533
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
534 535 536
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.
A
Andrew Morton 已提交
537

538

539
13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
540
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
541

542 543 544 545
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.
546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583

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
P
Pavel Machek 已提交
584
increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
585

586 587 588 589 590 591 592
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.

593 594 595 596 597 598
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.

599

600
14) The canonical patch format
601 602 603 604 605 606
------------------------------

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.
607

608 609
The canonical patch subject line is:

610
    Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
611 612 613

The canonical patch message body contains the following:

614 615
  - A "from" line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person
    sending the patch is not the author).
616 617 618

  - An empty line.

619 620
  - The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which will
    be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635

  - 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.

636 637 638 639 640 641
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
R
Randy Dunlap 已提交
642 643
phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
644

645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671
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.
672 673 674 675 676

A couple of example Subjects:

    Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
    Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690

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
691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698
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.
699 700 701 702 703

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
704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714
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
715 716
space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).  (git
generates appropriate diffstats by default.)
717 718 719 720 721

See more details on the proper patch format in the following
references.


722
15) Sending "git pull" requests
723
-------------------------------
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
724

725 726 727 728 729
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
730 731 732
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
733

734 735 736
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:
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
737

738
  Please pull from
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
739

740
      git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
741

742
  to get these changes:"
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
743

744 745 746 747 748
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
749

750 751 752 753
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
754

755 756 757 758
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
759

760 761 762 763 764 765
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
766

767 768 769
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.
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
770

771 772
When generating your pull request, use the signed tag as the target.  A
command like this will do the trick:
L
Linus Torvalds 已提交
773

774
  git request-pull master git://my.public.tree/linux.git my-signed-tag
775 776 777


----------------------
778
SECTION 2 - REFERENCES
779 780 781
----------------------

Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
782
  <http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
783

784
Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
785 786
  <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>

787
Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
788 789 790 791 792
  <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>
793
  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-06.html>
794

795
NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
796
  <https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336>
797

798
Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle:
799
  <Documentation/CodingStyle>
800

801
Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format:
802
  <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
803 804

Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
L
Lucas De Marchi 已提交
805
  Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in.
806 807
  http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf

808
--