Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
609d99a3 | 1 | .. _submittingpatches: |
1da177e4 | 2 | |
89edeedd JC |
3 | Submitting patches: the essential guide to getting your code into the kernel |
4 | ============================================================================ | |
1da177e4 LT |
5 | |
6 | For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux | |
7 | kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar | |
8 | with "the system." This text is a collection of suggestions which | |
9 | can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted. | |
10 | ||
d00c4559 JC |
11 | This document contains a large number of suggestions in a relatively terse |
12 | format. For detailed information on how the kernel development process | |
0e4f07a6 | 13 | works, see :ref:`Documentation/process <development_process_main>`. |
8c27ceff | 14 | Also, read :ref:`Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst <submitchecklist>` |
dca22a63 | 15 | for a list of items to check before |
d00c4559 | 16 | submitting code. If you are submitting a driver, also read |
8c27ceff | 17 | :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst <submittingdrivers>`; |
dca22a63 | 18 | for device tree binding patches, read |
858e6845 | 19 | Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst. |
1da177e4 | 20 | |
9b2c7677 MCC |
21 | Many of these steps describe the default behavior of the ``git`` version |
22 | control system; if you use ``git`` to prepare your patches, you'll find much | |
8e3072a2 | 23 | of the mechanical work done for you, though you'll still need to prepare |
9b2c7677 | 24 | and document a sensible set of patches. In general, use of ``git`` will make |
d00c4559 | 25 | your life as a kernel developer easier. |
1da177e4 | 26 | |
7994cc15 JC |
27 | 0) Obtain a current source tree |
28 | ------------------------------- | |
29 | ||
30 | If you do not have a repository with the current kernel source handy, use | |
9b2c7677 | 31 | ``git`` to obtain one. You'll want to start with the mainline repository, |
5903019b | 32 | which can be grabbed with:: |
7994cc15 | 33 | |
5903019b | 34 | git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git |
7994cc15 JC |
35 | |
36 | Note, however, that you may not want to develop against the mainline tree | |
37 | directly. Most subsystem maintainers run their own trees and want to see | |
5903019b | 38 | patches prepared against those trees. See the **T:** entry for the subsystem |
7994cc15 JC |
39 | in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if |
40 | the tree is not listed there. | |
41 | ||
42 | It is still possible to download kernel releases via tarballs (as described | |
43 | in the next section), but that is the hard way to do kernel development. | |
1da177e4 | 44 | |
5903019b MCC |
45 | 1) ``diff -up`` |
46 | --------------- | |
1da177e4 | 47 | |
5903019b | 48 | If you must generate your patches by hand, use ``diff -up`` or ``diff -uprN`` |
7994cc15 | 49 | to create patches. Git generates patches in this form by default; if |
9b2c7677 | 50 | you're using ``git``, you can skip this section entirely. |
1da177e4 LT |
51 | |
52 | All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as | |
9b2c7677 MCC |
53 | generated by :manpage:`diff(1)`. When creating your patch, make sure to |
54 | create it in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the ``-u`` argument | |
55 | to :manpage:`diff(1)`. | |
5903019b | 56 | Also, please use the ``-p`` argument which shows which C function each |
9b2c7677 | 57 | change is in - that makes the resultant ``diff`` a lot easier to read. |
1da177e4 LT |
58 | Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory, |
59 | not in any lower subdirectory. | |
60 | ||
5903019b | 61 | To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:: |
1da177e4 | 62 | |
4318f9bb TL |
63 | SRCTREE=linux |
64 | MYFILE=drivers/net/mydriver.c | |
1da177e4 LT |
65 | |
66 | cd $SRCTREE | |
67 | cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig | |
68 | vi $MYFILE # make your change | |
69 | cd .. | |
70 | diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch | |
71 | ||
72 | To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla", | |
9b2c7677 | 73 | or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a ``diff`` against your |
5903019b | 74 | own source tree. For example:: |
1da177e4 | 75 | |
4318f9bb | 76 | MYSRC=/devel/linux |
1da177e4 | 77 | |
d00c4559 JC |
78 | tar xvfz linux-3.19.tar.gz |
79 | mv linux-3.19 linux-3.19-vanilla | |
80 | diff -uprN -X linux-3.19-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \ | |
81 | linux-3.19-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch | |
1da177e4 | 82 | |
5903019b | 83 | ``dontdiff`` is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during |
9b2c7677 | 84 | the build process, and should be ignored in any :manpage:`diff(1)`-generated |
d00c4559 | 85 | patch. |
1da177e4 LT |
86 | |
87 | Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not | |
88 | belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after- | |
9b2c7677 | 89 | generating it with :manpage:`diff(1)`, to ensure accuracy. |
1da177e4 | 90 | |
8e3072a2 | 91 | If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into |
5903019b MCC |
92 | individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see |
93 | :ref:`split_changes`. This will facilitate review by other kernel developers, | |
8e3072a2 | 94 | very important if you want your patch accepted. |
1da177e4 | 95 | |
9b2c7677 | 96 | If you're using ``git``, ``git rebase -i`` can help you with this process. If |
e7b4311e | 97 | you're not using ``git``, ``quilt`` <https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt> |
8e3072a2 | 98 | is another popular alternative. |
84da7c08 | 99 | |
5903019b | 100 | .. _describe_changes: |
84da7c08 | 101 | |
5903019b MCC |
102 | 2) Describe your changes |
103 | ------------------------ | |
1da177e4 | 104 | |
7b9828d4 JW |
105 | Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or |
106 | 5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that | |
107 | motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a | |
108 | problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the | |
109 | first paragraph. | |
110 | ||
111 | Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are | |
112 | pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the | |
113 | problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think | |
114 | it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux | |
115 | installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or | |
116 | vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches | |
117 | from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change | |
118 | downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash | |
119 | descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc. | |
120 | ||
121 | Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in | |
122 | performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size, | |
123 | include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious | |
124 | costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU, | |
125 | memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between | |
126 | different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your | |
127 | optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits. | |
128 | ||
129 | Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing | |
130 | about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change | |
131 | in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving | |
132 | as you intend it to. | |
1da177e4 | 133 | |
2ae19aca TT |
134 | The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a |
135 | form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management | |
9b2c7677 | 136 | system, ``git``, as a "commit log". See :ref:`explicit_in_reply_to`. |
2ae19aca | 137 | |
7b9828d4 JW |
138 | Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get |
139 | long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch. | |
5903019b | 140 | See :ref:`split_changes`. |
1da177e4 | 141 | |
d89b1945 RD |
142 | When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the |
143 | complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just | |
144 | say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the | |
d00c4559 | 145 | subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced |
d89b1945 RD |
146 | URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch. |
147 | I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained. | |
d00c4559 | 148 | This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers |
d89b1945 RD |
149 | probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch. |
150 | ||
74a475ac JT |
151 | Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" |
152 | instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy | |
153 | to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change | |
154 | its behaviour. | |
155 | ||
d89b1945 | 156 | If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by |
9547c706 JT |
157 | number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion, |
158 | give a URL to the mailing list archive; use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ | |
9b2c7677 | 159 | redirector with a ``Message-Id``, to ensure that the links cannot become |
9547c706 JT |
160 | stale. |
161 | ||
162 | However, try to make your explanation understandable without external | |
163 | resources. In addition to giving a URL to a mailing list archive or | |
164 | bug, summarize the relevant points of the discussion that led to the | |
165 | patch as submitted. | |
1da177e4 | 166 | |
0af52703 GU |
167 | If you want to refer to a specific commit, don't just refer to the |
168 | SHA-1 ID of the commit. Please also include the oneline summary of | |
169 | the commit, to make it easier for reviewers to know what it is about. | |
5903019b | 170 | Example:: |
0af52703 GU |
171 | |
172 | Commit e21d2170f36602ae2708 ("video: remove unnecessary | |
173 | platform_set_drvdata()") removed the unnecessary | |
174 | platform_set_drvdata(), but left the variable "dev" unused, | |
175 | delete it. | |
176 | ||
7994cc15 JC |
177 | You should also be sure to use at least the first twelve characters of the |
178 | SHA-1 ID. The kernel repository holds a *lot* of objects, making | |
179 | collisions with shorter IDs a real possibility. Bear in mind that, even if | |
180 | there is no collision with your six-character ID now, that condition may | |
181 | change five years from now. | |
182 | ||
8401aa1f | 183 | If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using |
9b2c7677 | 184 | ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of |
19c3fe28 SC |
185 | the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. Do not split the tag across multiple |
186 | lines, tags are exempt from the "wrap at 75 columns" rule in order to simplify | |
187 | parsing scripts. For example:: | |
8401aa1f | 188 | |
19c3fe28 | 189 | Fixes: 54a4f0239f2e ("KVM: MMU: make kvm_mmu_zap_page() return the number of pages it actually freed") |
8401aa1f | 190 | |
9b2c7677 MCC |
191 | The following ``git config`` settings can be used to add a pretty format for |
192 | outputting the above style in the ``git log`` or ``git show`` commands:: | |
8401aa1f JK |
193 | |
194 | [core] | |
195 | abbrev = 12 | |
196 | [pretty] | |
197 | fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\") | |
1da177e4 | 198 | |
5903019b MCC |
199 | .. _split_changes: |
200 | ||
201 | 3) Separate your changes | |
202 | ------------------------ | |
1da177e4 | 203 | |
5903019b | 204 | Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch. |
1da177e4 LT |
205 | |
206 | For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance | |
207 | enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two | |
208 | or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new | |
209 | driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches. | |
210 | ||
211 | On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files, | |
212 | group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change | |
213 | is contained within a single patch. | |
214 | ||
d00c4559 JC |
215 | The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood |
216 | change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable | |
217 | on its own merits. | |
218 | ||
1da177e4 | 219 | If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be |
5903019b | 220 | complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"** |
1da177e4 LT |
221 | in your patch description. |
222 | ||
7994cc15 JC |
223 | When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to |
224 | ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the | |
5903019b | 225 | series. Developers using ``git bisect`` to track down a problem can end up |
7994cc15 JC |
226 | splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you |
227 | introduce bugs in the middle. | |
228 | ||
5b0ed2c6 XVP |
229 | If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, |
230 | then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration. | |
231 | ||
232 | ||
1da177e4 | 233 | |
5903019b MCC |
234 | 4) Style-check your changes |
235 | --------------------------- | |
0a920b5b AW |
236 | |
237 | Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be | |
dca22a63 | 238 | found in |
8c27ceff | 239 | :ref:`Documentation/process/coding-style.rst <codingstyle>`. |
dca22a63 | 240 | Failure to do so simply wastes |
f56d35e7 | 241 | the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably |
0a920b5b AW |
242 | without even being read. |
243 | ||
6de16eba JC |
244 | One significant exception is when moving code from one file to |
245 | another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in | |
246 | the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of | |
247 | moving the code and your changes. This greatly aids review of the | |
248 | actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of | |
249 | the code itself. | |
250 | ||
251 | Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission | |
252 | (scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be | |
253 | viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code | |
254 | looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone. | |
0a920b5b | 255 | |
6de16eba JC |
256 | The checker reports at three levels: |
257 | - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong | |
258 | - WARNING: things requiring careful review | |
259 | - CHECK: things requiring thought | |
0a920b5b | 260 | |
6de16eba JC |
261 | You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your |
262 | patch. | |
0a920b5b AW |
263 | |
264 | ||
5903019b MCC |
265 | 5) Select the recipients for your patch |
266 | --------------------------------------- | |
1da177e4 | 267 | |
ccae8616 JC |
268 | You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch |
269 | to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the | |
270 | source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The | |
271 | script scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step. If you | |
d6eff078 | 272 | cannot find a maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew |
ccae8616 | 273 | Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort. |
1da177e4 | 274 | |
ccae8616 JC |
275 | You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy |
276 | of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org functions as a list of | |
277 | last resort, but the volume on that list has caused a number of developers | |
278 | to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a subsystem-specific | |
279 | list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not | |
280 | spam unrelated lists, though. | |
1da177e4 | 281 | |
ccae8616 JC |
282 | Many kernel-related lists are hosted on vger.kernel.org; you can find a |
283 | list of them at http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html. There are | |
284 | kernel-related lists hosted elsewhere as well, though. | |
5b0ed2c6 XVP |
285 | |
286 | Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!! | |
287 | ||
1da177e4 | 288 | Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the |
e00bfcbf | 289 | Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>. |
ccae8616 JC |
290 | He gets a lot of e-mail, and, at this point, very few patches go through |
291 | Linus directly, so typically you should do your best to -avoid- | |
e00bfcbf | 292 | sending him e-mail. |
1da177e4 | 293 | |
ccae8616 JC |
294 | If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch |
295 | to security@kernel.org. For severe bugs, a short embargo may be considered | |
253508ca | 296 | to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases, |
ccae8616 | 297 | obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. |
1da177e4 | 298 | |
ccae8616 | 299 | Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed |
5903019b | 300 | toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:: |
1da177e4 | 301 | |
ccae8616 | 302 | Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org |
1da177e4 | 303 | |
8cda4c3a | 304 | into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You |
dca22a63 | 305 | should also read |
8c27ceff | 306 | :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` |
dca22a63 | 307 | in addition to this file. |
1da177e4 | 308 | |
ccae8616 JC |
309 | Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own |
310 | conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees. The networking | |
311 | maintainer, in particular, would rather not see individual developers | |
312 | adding lines like the above to their patches. | |
5b0ed2c6 | 313 | |
ccae8616 JC |
314 | If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send the MAN-PAGES |
315 | maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at | |
316 | least a notification of the change, so that some information makes its way | |
317 | into the manual pages. User-space API changes should also be copied to | |
5903019b | 318 | linux-api@vger.kernel.org. |
1da177e4 LT |
319 | |
320 | For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey | |
82d27b2b MH |
321 | trivial@kernel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look |
322 | into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager. | |
5903019b | 323 | |
82d27b2b | 324 | Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules: |
5903019b | 325 | |
9b2c7677 MCC |
326 | - Spelling fixes in documentation |
327 | - Spelling fixes for errors which could break :manpage:`grep(1)` | |
328 | - Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad) | |
329 | - Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct) | |
330 | - Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things) | |
331 | - Removing use of deprecated functions/macros | |
332 | - Contact detail and documentation fixes | |
333 | - Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific, | |
334 | since people copy, as long as it's trivial) | |
335 | - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey | |
336 | in re-transmission mode) | |
84da7c08 | 337 | |
1da177e4 LT |
338 | |
339 | ||
5903019b MCC |
340 | 6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text |
341 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
1da177e4 LT |
342 | |
343 | Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment | |
344 | on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a kernel | |
345 | developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail | |
346 | tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code. | |
347 | ||
bdc89213 | 348 | For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline". |
9b2c7677 MCC |
349 | |
350 | .. warning:: | |
351 | ||
352 | Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch, | |
353 | if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch. | |
1da177e4 LT |
354 | |
355 | Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. | |
356 | Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME | |
357 | attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your | |
358 | code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process, | |
359 | decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted. | |
360 | ||
361 | Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask | |
362 | you to re-send them using MIME. | |
363 | ||
8c27ceff | 364 | See :ref:`Documentation/process/email-clients.rst <email_clients>` |
dca22a63 MCC |
365 | for hints about configuring your e-mail client so that it sends your patches |
366 | untouched. | |
1da177e4 | 367 | |
5903019b MCC |
368 | 7) E-mail size |
369 | -------------- | |
1da177e4 LT |
370 | |
371 | Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some | |
4932be77 | 372 | maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size, |
1da177e4 | 373 | it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible |
d00c4559 JC |
374 | server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note |
375 | that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up | |
376 | anyway. | |
1da177e4 | 377 | |
5903019b MCC |
378 | 8) Respond to review comments |
379 | ----------------------------- | |
1da177e4 | 380 | |
0eea2314 JC |
381 | Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in |
382 | which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments; | |
383 | ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in return. Review comments | |
384 | or questions that do not lead to a code change should almost certainly | |
385 | bring about a comment or changelog entry so that the next reviewer better | |
386 | understands what is going on. | |
1da177e4 | 387 | |
0eea2314 JC |
388 | Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them |
389 | for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and | |
390 | reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond | |
391 | politely and address the problems they have pointed out. | |
1da177e4 | 392 | |
1da177e4 | 393 | |
5903019b MCC |
394 | 9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient |
395 | --------------------------------------- | |
1da177e4 | 396 | |
0eea2314 JC |
397 | After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. Reviewers are |
398 | busy people and may not get to your patch right away. | |
1da177e4 | 399 | |
0eea2314 JC |
400 | Once upon a time, patches used to disappear into the void without comment, |
401 | but the development process works more smoothly than that now. You should | |
402 | receive comments within a week or so; if that does not happen, make sure | |
403 | that you have sent your patches to the right place. Wait for a minimum of | |
404 | one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers - possibly longer during | |
405 | busy times like merge windows. | |
1da177e4 | 406 | |
1da177e4 | 407 | |
ccae8616 | 408 | 10) Include PATCH in the subject |
d00c4559 | 409 | -------------------------------- |
1da177e4 LT |
410 | |
411 | Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common | |
412 | convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets Linus | |
413 | and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other | |
414 | e-mail discussions. | |
415 | ||
416 | ||
417 | ||
bc7938de | 418 | 11) Sign your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin |
89edeedd | 419 | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
1da177e4 LT |
420 | |
421 | To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can | |
422 | percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several | |
423 | layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on | |
424 | patches that are being emailed around. | |
425 | ||
426 | The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the | |
427 | patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to | |
db12fb83 | 428 | pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you |
1da177e4 LT |
429 | can certify the below: |
430 | ||
5903019b MCC |
431 | Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1 |
432 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |
1da177e4 | 433 | |
5903019b | 434 | By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: |
1da177e4 LT |
435 | |
436 | (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I | |
437 | have the right to submit it under the open source license | |
438 | indicated in the file; or | |
439 | ||
440 | (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best | |
441 | of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source | |
442 | license and I have the right under that license to submit that | |
443 | work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part | |
444 | by me, under the same open source license (unless I am | |
445 | permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated | |
446 | in the file; or | |
447 | ||
448 | (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other | |
449 | person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified | |
450 | it. | |
451 | ||
e00bfcbf SB |
452 | (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution |
453 | are public and that a record of the contribution (including all | |
454 | personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is | |
455 | maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with | |
456 | this project or the open source license(s) involved. | |
cbd83da8 | 457 | |
5903019b | 458 | then you just add a line saying:: |
1da177e4 | 459 | |
9fd5559c | 460 | Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> |
1da177e4 | 461 | |
af45f32d GK |
462 | using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.) |
463 | ||
1da177e4 LT |
464 | Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for |
465 | now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just | |
e00bfcbf | 466 | point out some special detail about the sign-off. |
1da177e4 | 467 | |
adbd5886 WT |
468 | If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly |
469 | modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not | |
470 | exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to | |
471 | rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally | |
472 | counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust | |
473 | the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and | |
474 | make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that | |
475 | you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating | |
476 | the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it | |
477 | seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all | |
478 | enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that | |
5903019b | 479 | you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example:: |
adbd5886 WT |
480 | |
481 | Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org> | |
482 | [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h] | |
483 | Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org> | |
484 | ||
305af08c | 485 | This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and |
adbd5886 WT |
486 | want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix, |
487 | and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances | |
488 | can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one | |
489 | which appears in the changelog. | |
490 | ||
305af08c | 491 | Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice |
adbd5886 WT |
492 | to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit |
493 | message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance, | |
5903019b | 494 | here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release:: |
adbd5886 | 495 | |
5903019b | 496 | Date: Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400 |
adbd5886 | 497 | |
7994cc15 | 498 | libata: Un-break ATA blacklist |
adbd5886 | 499 | |
7994cc15 | 500 | commit 1c40279960bcd7d52dbdf1d466b20d24b99176c8 upstream. |
adbd5886 | 501 | |
5903019b | 502 | And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported:: |
adbd5886 WT |
503 | |
504 | Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200 | |
505 | ||
506 | wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay | |
507 | ||
508 | [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a] | |
509 | ||
510 | Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people | |
7994cc15 | 511 | tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your |
adbd5886 WT |
512 | tree. |
513 | ||
1da177e4 | 514 | |
ae67ee6c | 515 | 12) When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by: |
82d95343 | 516 | ------------------------------------------------------- |
0a920b5b | 517 | |
0f44cd23 AM |
518 | The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the |
519 | development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. | |
520 | ||
521 | If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a | |
522 | patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can | |
d00c4559 | 523 | ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. |
0f44cd23 AM |
524 | |
525 | Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that | |
526 | maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch. | |
527 | ||
528 | Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker | |
529 | has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch | |
530 | mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" | |
d00c4559 JC |
531 | into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an |
532 | explicit ack). | |
0f44cd23 AM |
533 | |
534 | Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. | |
535 | For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from | |
536 | one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just | |
537 | the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. | |
ef40203a | 538 | When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing |
0f44cd23 AM |
539 | list archives. |
540 | ||
ef40203a | 541 | If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not |
5903019b | 542 | provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch. |
ef40203a | 543 | This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the |
d00c4559 JC |
544 | person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the |
545 | patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties | |
546 | have been included in the discussion. | |
0f44cd23 | 547 | |
24a2bb90 SC |
548 | Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers; |
549 | it is a used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author | |
550 | attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since | |
551 | Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately | |
552 | followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard sign-off | |
553 | procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the | |
554 | chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether | |
555 | the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last | |
556 | Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch. | |
557 | ||
558 | Note, the From: tag is optional when the From: author is also the person (and | |
559 | email) listed in the From: line of the email header. | |
560 | ||
561 | Example of a patch submitted by the From: author:: | |
562 | ||
563 | <changelog> | |
564 | ||
565 | Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> | |
566 | Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org> | |
567 | Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> | |
568 | Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org> | |
569 | Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org> | |
570 | ||
571 | Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author:: | |
572 | ||
573 | From: From Author <from@author.example.org> | |
574 | ||
575 | <changelog> | |
576 | ||
577 | Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org> | |
578 | Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org> | |
579 | Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org> | |
580 | Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org> | |
581 | Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org> | |
82d95343 | 582 | |
ef40203a | 583 | |
ccae8616 | 584 | 13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes: |
d00c4559 | 585 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
bbb0a424 | 586 | |
d75ef707 DC |
587 | The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it |
588 | hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. Please note that if | |
589 | the bug was reported in private, then ask for permission first before using the | |
590 | Reported-by tag. | |
ef40203a JC |
591 | |
592 | A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in | |
593 | some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that | |
594 | some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for | |
595 | future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. | |
596 | ||
597 | Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found | |
598 | acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: | |
599 | ||
5903019b MCC |
600 | Reviewer's statement of oversight |
601 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |
ef40203a | 602 | |
5903019b | 603 | By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: |
ef40203a | 604 | |
5903019b | 605 | (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to |
ef40203a JC |
606 | evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into |
607 | the mainline kernel. | |
608 | ||
609 | (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch | |
610 | have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied | |
611 | with the submitter's response to my comments. | |
612 | ||
613 | (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this | |
614 | submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a | |
615 | worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known | |
616 | issues which would argue against its inclusion. | |
617 | ||
618 | (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I | |
619 | do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any | |
620 | warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated | |
621 | purpose or function properly in any given situation. | |
622 | ||
623 | A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an | |
624 | appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious | |
625 | technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can | |
626 | offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to | |
627 | reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been | |
628 | done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to | |
629 | understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally | |
5801da1b | 630 | increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. |
ef40203a | 631 | |
8543ae12 M |
632 | A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person |
633 | named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this | |
634 | tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the | |
635 | idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our | |
636 | idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the | |
637 | future. | |
638 | ||
8401aa1f JK |
639 | A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It |
640 | is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated, which can help | |
641 | review a bug fix. This tag also assists the stable kernel team in determining | |
642 | which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred | |
5903019b MCC |
643 | method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes` |
644 | for more details. | |
8401aa1f | 645 | |
f58252cd | 646 | .. _the_canonical_patch_format: |
ef40203a | 647 | |
ccae8616 | 648 | 14) The canonical patch format |
7994cc15 JC |
649 | ------------------------------ |
650 | ||
651 | This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note | |
9b2c7677 | 652 | that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch |
5903019b | 653 | formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create |
7994cc15 | 654 | the necessary text, though, so read the instructions below anyway. |
84da7c08 | 655 | |
5903019b | 656 | The canonical patch subject line is:: |
75f8426c | 657 | |
d6b9acc0 | 658 | Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase |
75f8426c PJ |
659 | |
660 | The canonical patch message body contains the following: | |
661 | ||
d19b3e32 JH |
662 | - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty |
663 | line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author). | |
75f8426c | 664 | |
2a076f40 JP |
665 | - The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which will |
666 | be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch. | |
75f8426c | 667 | |
d19b3e32 JH |
668 | - An empty line. |
669 | ||
5903019b | 670 | - The ``Signed-off-by:`` lines, described above, which will |
75f8426c PJ |
671 | also go in the changelog. |
672 | ||
5903019b | 673 | - A marker line containing simply ``---``. |
75f8426c PJ |
674 | |
675 | - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. | |
676 | ||
9b2c7677 | 677 | - The actual patch (``diff`` output). |
75f8426c PJ |
678 | |
679 | The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails | |
680 | alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will | |
681 | support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded, | |
682 | the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same. | |
683 | ||
5903019b | 684 | The ``subsystem`` in the email's Subject should identify which |
d6b9acc0 PJ |
685 | area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched. |
686 | ||
5903019b MCC |
687 | The ``summary phrase`` in the email's Subject should concisely |
688 | describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary | |
689 | phrase`` should not be a filename. Do not use the same ``summary | |
690 | phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch | |
691 | series`` is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches). | |
d6b9acc0 | 692 | |
5903019b | 693 | Bear in mind that the ``summary phrase`` of your email becomes a |
2ae19aca | 694 | globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way |
9b2c7677 | 695 | into the ``git`` changelog. The ``summary phrase`` may later be used in |
2ae19aca | 696 | developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to |
5903019b | 697 | google for the ``summary phrase`` to read discussion regarding that |
2ae19aca TT |
698 | patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see |
699 | when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps | |
9b2c7677 MCC |
700 | thousands of patches using tools such as ``gitk`` or ``git log |
701 | --oneline``. | |
2ae19aca | 702 | |
5903019b | 703 | For these reasons, the ``summary`` must be no more than 70-75 |
2ae19aca TT |
704 | characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well |
705 | as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both | |
706 | succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary | |
707 | should do. | |
708 | ||
5903019b | 709 | The ``summary phrase`` may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square |
e12d7462 AH |
710 | brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>". The tags are |
711 | not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch | |
2ae19aca TT |
712 | should be treated. Common tags might include a version descriptor if |
713 | the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to | |
714 | comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for | |
715 | comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual | |
716 | patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4. This assures | |
717 | that developers understand the order in which the patches should be | |
718 | applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in | |
719 | the patch series. | |
d6b9acc0 | 720 | |
5903019b | 721 | A couple of example Subjects:: |
d6b9acc0 | 722 | |
e12d7462 AH |
723 | Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching |
724 | Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking | |
75f8426c | 725 | |
5903019b | 726 | The ``from`` line must be the very first line in the message body, |
75f8426c PJ |
727 | and has the form: |
728 | ||
24a2bb90 | 729 | From: Patch Author <author@example.com> |
75f8426c | 730 | |
5903019b MCC |
731 | The ``from`` line specifies who will be credited as the author of the |
732 | patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing, | |
733 | then the ``From:`` line from the email header will be used to determine | |
75f8426c PJ |
734 | the patch author in the changelog. |
735 | ||
736 | The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source | |
737 | changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long | |
738 | since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might | |
2ae19aca TT |
739 | have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the |
740 | patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is | |
741 | especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs | |
742 | looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure, | |
743 | it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just | |
744 | enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find | |
5903019b | 745 | it. As in the ``summary phrase``, it is important to be both succinct as |
2ae19aca | 746 | well as descriptive. |
75f8426c | 747 | |
5903019b | 748 | The ``---`` marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch |
75f8426c PJ |
749 | handling tools where the changelog message ends. |
750 | ||
5903019b | 751 | One good use for the additional comments after the ``---`` marker is for |
9b2c7677 MCC |
752 | a ``diffstat``, to show what files have changed, and the number of |
753 | inserted and deleted lines per file. A ``diffstat`` is especially useful | |
2ae19aca TT |
754 | on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the |
755 | maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go | |
5903019b | 756 | here. A good example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs`` |
2ae19aca TT |
757 | which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the |
758 | patch. | |
759 | ||
9b2c7677 MCC |
760 | If you are going to include a ``diffstat`` after the ``---`` marker, please |
761 | use ``diffstat`` options ``-p 1 -w 70`` so that filenames are listed from | |
2ae19aca | 762 | the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal |
9b2c7677 | 763 | space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation). (``git`` |
8e3072a2 | 764 | generates appropriate diffstats by default.) |
75f8426c PJ |
765 | |
766 | See more details on the proper patch format in the following | |
767 | references. | |
768 | ||
5903019b MCC |
769 | .. _explicit_in_reply_to: |
770 | ||
d7ac8d85 CM |
771 | 15) Explicit In-Reply-To headers |
772 | -------------------------------- | |
773 | ||
774 | It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch | |
5903019b | 775 | (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with |
d7ac8d85 CM |
776 | previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with |
777 | the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally | |
778 | best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the | |
779 | series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an | |
780 | unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is | |
781 | helpful, you can use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in | |
782 | the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series. | |
783 | ||
75f8426c | 784 | |
e8686a40 KR |
785 | 16) Providing base tree information |
786 | ----------------------------------- | |
787 | ||
788 | When other developers receive your patches and start the review process, | |
789 | it is often useful for them to know where in the tree history they | |
790 | should place your work. This is particularly useful for automated CI | |
791 | processes that attempt to run a series of tests in order to establish | |
792 | the quality of your submission before the maintainer starts the review. | |
793 | ||
794 | If you are using ``git format-patch`` to generate your patches, you can | |
795 | automatically include the base tree information in your submission by | |
796 | using the ``--base`` flag. The easiest and most convenient way to use | |
797 | this option is with topical branches:: | |
798 | ||
799 | $ git checkout -t -b my-topical-branch master | |
800 | Branch 'my-topical-branch' set up to track local branch 'master'. | |
801 | Switched to a new branch 'my-topical-branch' | |
802 | ||
803 | [perform your edits and commits] | |
804 | ||
805 | $ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master | |
806 | outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch | |
807 | outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch | |
808 | outgoing/... | |
809 | ||
810 | When you open ``outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch`` for editing, you will | |
811 | notice that it will have the ``base-commit:`` trailer at the very | |
812 | bottom, which provides the reviewer and the CI tools enough information | |
813 | to properly perform ``git am`` without worrying about conflicts:: | |
814 | ||
815 | $ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id] | |
816 | Switched to a new branch 'patch-review' | |
817 | $ git am patches.mbox | |
818 | Applying: First Commit | |
819 | Applying: ... | |
820 | ||
821 | Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this | |
822 | option. | |
823 | ||
824 | .. note:: | |
825 | ||
826 | The ``--base`` feature was introduced in git version 2.9.0. | |
827 | ||
828 | If you are not using git to format your patches, you can still include | |
829 | the same ``base-commit`` trailer to indicate the commit hash of the tree | |
830 | on which your work is based. You should add it either in the cover | |
831 | letter or in the first patch of the series and it should be placed | |
832 | either below the ``---`` line or at the very bottom of all other | |
833 | content, right before your email signature. | |
834 | ||
835 | ||
836 | 17) Sending ``git pull`` requests | |
5903019b | 837 | --------------------------------- |
1da177e4 | 838 | |
7994cc15 JC |
839 | If you have a series of patches, it may be most convenient to have the |
840 | maintainer pull them directly into the subsystem repository with a | |
5903019b | 841 | ``git pull`` operation. Note, however, that pulling patches from a developer |
7994cc15 JC |
842 | requires a higher degree of trust than taking patches from a mailing list. |
843 | As a result, many subsystem maintainers are reluctant to take pull | |
b792ffe4 JC |
844 | requests, especially from new, unknown developers. If in doubt you can use |
845 | the pull request as the cover letter for a normal posting of the patch | |
846 | series, giving the maintainer the option of using either. | |
1da177e4 | 847 | |
3b443955 | 848 | A pull request should have [GIT PULL] in the subject line. The |
7994cc15 | 849 | request itself should include the repository name and the branch of |
5903019b | 850 | interest on a single line; it should look something like:: |
1da177e4 | 851 | |
7994cc15 | 852 | Please pull from |
1da177e4 | 853 | |
7994cc15 | 854 | git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus |
1da177e4 | 855 | |
64e32895 | 856 | to get these changes: |
1da177e4 | 857 | |
7994cc15 | 858 | A pull request should also include an overall message saying what will be |
5903019b | 859 | included in the request, a ``git shortlog`` listing of the patches |
9b2c7677 | 860 | themselves, and a ``diffstat`` showing the overall effect of the patch series. |
7994cc15 | 861 | The easiest way to get all this information together is, of course, to let |
9b2c7677 | 862 | ``git`` do it for you with the ``git request-pull`` command. |
1da177e4 | 863 | |
7994cc15 JC |
864 | Some maintainers (including Linus) want to see pull requests from signed |
865 | commits; that increases their confidence that the request actually came | |
866 | from you. Linus, in particular, will not pull from public hosting sites | |
867 | like GitHub in the absence of a signed tag. | |
1da177e4 | 868 | |
7994cc15 JC |
869 | The first step toward creating such tags is to make a GNUPG key and get it |
870 | signed by one or more core kernel developers. This step can be hard for | |
871 | new developers, but there is no way around it. Attending conferences can | |
872 | be a good way to find developers who can sign your key. | |
1da177e4 | 873 | |
9b2c7677 | 874 | Once you have prepared a patch series in ``git`` that you wish to have somebody |
5903019b | 875 | pull, create a signed tag with ``git tag -s``. This will create a new tag |
7994cc15 JC |
876 | identifying the last commit in the series and containing a signature |
877 | created with your private key. You will also have the opportunity to add a | |
878 | changelog-style message to the tag; this is an ideal place to describe the | |
879 | effects of the pull request as a whole. | |
1da177e4 | 880 | |
7994cc15 JC |
881 | If the tree the maintainer will be pulling from is not the repository you |
882 | are working from, don't forget to push the signed tag explicitly to the | |
883 | public tree. | |
1da177e4 | 884 | |
7994cc15 | 885 | When generating your pull request, use the signed tag as the target. A |
5903019b | 886 | command like this will do the trick:: |
1da177e4 | 887 | |
7994cc15 | 888 | git request-pull master git://my.public.tree/linux.git my-signed-tag |
5b0ed2c6 XVP |
889 | |
890 | ||
89edeedd JC |
891 | References |
892 | ---------- | |
5b0ed2c6 XVP |
893 | |
894 | Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). | |
e7b4311e | 895 | <https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt> |
5b0ed2c6 | 896 | |
8e9cb8fd | 897 | Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format". |
5aff7c46 | 898 | <https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> |
5b0ed2c6 | 899 | |
8e9cb8fd | 900 | Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer". |
f5039935 | 901 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer.html> |
9b2c7677 | 902 | |
f5039935 | 903 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-02.html> |
9b2c7677 | 904 | |
f5039935 | 905 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-03.html> |
9b2c7677 | 906 | |
f5039935 | 907 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-04.html> |
9b2c7677 | 908 | |
f5039935 | 909 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-05.html> |
9b2c7677 | 910 | |
7e0dae61 | 911 | <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-06.html> |
5b0ed2c6 | 912 | |
bc7455fa | 913 | NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people! |
37c703f4 | 914 | <https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336> |
5b0ed2c6 | 915 | |
8c27ceff MCC |
916 | Kernel Documentation/process/coding-style.rst: |
917 | :ref:`Documentation/process/coding-style.rst <codingstyle>` | |
5b0ed2c6 | 918 | |
8e9cb8fd | 919 | Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: |
5b0ed2c6 | 920 | <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183> |
9536727e AK |
921 | |
922 | Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches" | |
25985edc | 923 | Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in. |
9b2c7677 | 924 | |
9536727e | 925 | http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf |