839 lines
37 KiB
ReStructuredText
839 lines
37 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
.. _submittingpatches:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Submitting patches: the essential guide to getting your code into the kernel
|
||
|
============================================================================
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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/process/development-process.rst. Also, read
|
||
|
Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
|
||
|
for a list of items to check before submitting code.
|
||
|
For device tree binding patches, read
|
||
|
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This documentation assumes that you're using ``git`` to prepare your patches.
|
||
|
If you're unfamiliar with ``git``, you would be well-advised to learn how to
|
||
|
use it, it will make your life as a kernel developer and in general much
|
||
|
easier.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some subsystems and maintainer trees have additional information about
|
||
|
their workflow and expectations, see
|
||
|
:ref:`Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst <maintainer_handbooks_main>`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _describe_changes:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Describe your changes
|
||
|
---------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 :ref:`the_canonical_patch_format`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 :ref:`split_changes`.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
|
||
|
URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
|
||
|
I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
|
||
|
This benefits both the maintainers and reviewers. Some reviewers
|
||
|
probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If related discussions or any other background information behind the change
|
||
|
can be found on the web, add 'Link:' tags pointing to it. In case your patch
|
||
|
fixes a bug, for example, add a tag with a URL referencing the report in the
|
||
|
mailing list archives or a bug tracker; if the patch is a result of some
|
||
|
earlier mailing list discussion or something documented on the web, point to
|
||
|
it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
When linking to mailing list archives, preferably use the lore.kernel.org
|
||
|
message archiver service. To create the link URL, use the contents of the
|
||
|
``Message-Id`` header of the message without the surrounding angle brackets.
|
||
|
For example::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/30th.anniversary.repost@klaava.Helsinki.FI/
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please check the link to make sure that it is actually working and points
|
||
|
to the relevant message.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. Do not split the tag across multiple
|
||
|
lines, tags are exempt from the "wrap at 75 columns" rule in order to simplify
|
||
|
parsing scripts. For example::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fixes: 54a4f0239f2e ("KVM: MMU: make kvm_mmu_zap_page() return the number of pages it actually freed")
|
||
|
|
||
|
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\")
|
||
|
|
||
|
An example call::
|
||
|
|
||
|
$ git log -1 --pretty=fixes 54a4f0239f2e
|
||
|
Fixes: 54a4f0239f2e ("KVM: MMU: make kvm_mmu_zap_page() return the number of pages it actually freed")
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _split_changes:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Separate your changes
|
||
|
---------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Style-check your changes
|
||
|
------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
|
||
|
found in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
|
||
|
Failure to do so simply wastes
|
||
|
the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
|
||
|
without even being read.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The checker reports at three levels:
|
||
|
- ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
|
||
|
- WARNING: things requiring careful review
|
||
|
- CHECK: things requiring thought
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
|
||
|
patch.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Select the recipients for your patch
|
||
|
------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 (pass paths to
|
||
|
your patches as arguments to scripts/get_maintainer.pl). If you cannot find a
|
||
|
maintainer for the subsystem you are working on, Andrew Morton
|
||
|
(akpm@linux-foundation.org) serves as a maintainer of last resort.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy
|
||
|
of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be used by default
|
||
|
for all patches, 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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
|
||
|
Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>.
|
||
|
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-
|
||
|
sending him e-mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
|
||
|
obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. See also
|
||
|
Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed
|
||
|
toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
|
||
|
|
||
|
into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You
|
||
|
should also read Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
|
||
|
in addition to this document.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text
|
||
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
|
||
|
on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a kernel
|
||
|
developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
|
||
|
tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail "inline". The
|
||
|
easiest way to do this is with ``git send-email``, which is strongly
|
||
|
recommended. An interactive tutorial for ``git send-email`` is available at
|
||
|
https://git-send-email.io.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you choose not to use ``git send-email``:
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. 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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
See Documentation/process/email-clients.rst for hints about configuring
|
||
|
your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Respond to review comments
|
||
|
--------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
|
||
|
which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must
|
||
|
respond to those comments; ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in
|
||
|
return. You can simply reply to their emails to answer their comments. 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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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. When sending a next
|
||
|
version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches
|
||
|
explaining difference aganst previous submission (see
|
||
|
:ref:`the_canonical_patch_format`).
|
||
|
|
||
|
See Documentation/process/email-clients.rst for recommendations on email
|
||
|
clients and mailing list etiquette.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _resend_reminders:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Don't get discouraged - or impatient
|
||
|
------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. Reviewers are
|
||
|
busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It's also ok to resend the patch or the patch series after a couple of
|
||
|
weeks with the word "RESEND" added to the subject line::
|
||
|
|
||
|
[PATCH Vx RESEND] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
|
||
|
|
||
|
Don't add "RESEND" when you are submitting a modified version of your
|
||
|
patch or patch series - "RESEND" only applies to resubmission of a
|
||
|
patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the
|
||
|
previous submission.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Include PATCH in the subject
|
||
|
-----------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
``git send-email`` will do this for you automatically.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Sign your work - the Developer's Certificate of Origin
|
||
|
------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
|
||
|
can certify the below:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
|
||
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
(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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
then you just add a line saying::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
|
||
|
|
||
|
using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
|
||
|
This will be done for you automatically if you use ``git commit -s``.
|
||
|
Reverts should also include "Signed-off-by". ``git revert -s`` does that
|
||
|
for you.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for
|
||
|
now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
|
||
|
point out some special detail about the sign-off.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Any further SoBs (Signed-off-by:'s) following the author's SoB are from
|
||
|
people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
|
||
|
development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
|
||
|
as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with
|
||
|
the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:
|
||
|
------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
|
||
|
maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker
|
||
|
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
|
||
|
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
|
||
|
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
|
||
|
explicit ack).
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
|
||
|
list archives.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
|
||
|
provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
|
||
|
This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
|
||
|
person it names - 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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
|
||
|
it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
|
||
|
attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since
|
||
|
Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
|
||
|
followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author. Standard sign-off
|
||
|
procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
|
||
|
chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
|
||
|
the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Note, the From: tag is optional when the From: author is also the person (and
|
||
|
email) listed in the From: line of the email header.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
|
||
|
|
||
|
<changelog>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Co-developed-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: First Co-Author <first@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Co-developed-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: Second Co-Author <second@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
|
||
|
|
||
|
From: From Author <from@author.example.org>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<changelog>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Co-developed-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: Random Co-Author <random@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: From Author <from@author.example.org>
|
||
|
Co-developed-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: Submitting Co-Author <sub@coauthor.example.org>
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
|
||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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. The tag is intended for bugs; please do not use it to credit
|
||
|
feature requests.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Both Tested-by and Reviewed-by tags, once received on mailing list from tester
|
||
|
or reviewer, should be added by author to the applicable patches when sending
|
||
|
next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
|
||
|
version, these tags might not be applicable anymore and thus should be removed.
|
||
|
Usually removal of someone's Tested-by or Reviewed-by tags should be mentioned
|
||
|
in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 :ref:`describe_changes`
|
||
|
for more details.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Note: Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules
|
||
|
process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org on all stable
|
||
|
patch candidates. For more information, please read
|
||
|
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _the_canonical_patch_format:
|
||
|
|
||
|
The canonical patch format
|
||
|
--------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The canonical patch subject line is::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
|
||
|
|
||
|
The canonical patch message body contains the following:
|
||
|
|
||
|
- A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty
|
||
|
line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author).
|
||
|
|
||
|
- The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which will
|
||
|
be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
|
||
|
|
||
|
- An empty line.
|
||
|
|
||
|
- 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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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
|
||
|
phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch
|
||
|
series`` is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Here are some good example Subjects::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
|
||
|
Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking
|
||
|
Subject: [PATCH v2] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
|
||
|
Subject: [PATCH v2 M/N] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ``from`` line must be the very first line in the message body,
|
||
|
and has the form:
|
||
|
|
||
|
From: Patch 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 have led to
|
||
|
this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the patch addresses
|
||
|
(kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) are especially useful for
|
||
|
people who might be searching the commit logs looking for the applicable
|
||
|
patch. The text should be written in such detail so that when read
|
||
|
weeks, months or even years later, it can give the reader the needed
|
||
|
details to grasp the reasoning for **why** the patch was created.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 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. 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 space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some
|
||
|
indentation). (``git`` generates appropriate diffstats by default.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please put this information **after** the ``---`` line which separates
|
||
|
the changelog from the rest of the patch. The version information is
|
||
|
not part of the changelog which gets committed to the git tree. It is
|
||
|
additional information for the reviewers. If it's placed above the
|
||
|
commit tags, it needs manual interaction to remove it. If it is below
|
||
|
the separator line, it gets automatically stripped off when applying the
|
||
|
patch::
|
||
|
|
||
|
<commit message>
|
||
|
...
|
||
|
Signed-off-by: Author <author@mail>
|
||
|
---
|
||
|
V2 -> V3: Removed redundant helper function
|
||
|
V1 -> V2: Cleaned up coding style and addressed review comments
|
||
|
|
||
|
path/to/file | 5+++--
|
||
|
...
|
||
|
|
||
|
See more details on the proper patch format in the following
|
||
|
references.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _backtraces:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Backtraces in commit messages
|
||
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
|
||
|
Backtraces help document the call chain leading to a problem. However,
|
||
|
not all backtraces are helpful. For example, early boot call chains are
|
||
|
unique and obvious. Copying the full dmesg output verbatim, however,
|
||
|
adds distracting information like timestamps, module lists, register and
|
||
|
stack dumps.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Therefore, the most useful backtraces should distill the relevant
|
||
|
information from the dump, which makes it easier to focus on the real
|
||
|
issue. Here is an example of a well-trimmed backtrace::
|
||
|
|
||
|
unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0xd51 (tried to write 0x0000000000000064)
|
||
|
at rIP: 0xffffffffae059994 (native_write_msr+0x4/0x20)
|
||
|
Call Trace:
|
||
|
mba_wrmsr
|
||
|
update_domains
|
||
|
rdtgroup_mkdir
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _explicit_in_reply_to:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Explicit In-Reply-To headers
|
||
|
----------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
|
||
|
(e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
|
||
|
previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with
|
||
|
the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
|
||
|
best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
|
||
|
series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
|
||
|
unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is
|
||
|
helpful, you can use the https://lore.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in
|
||
|
the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Providing base tree information
|
||
|
-------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
When other developers receive your patches and start the review process,
|
||
|
it is often useful for them to know where in the tree history they
|
||
|
should place your work. This is particularly useful for automated CI
|
||
|
processes that attempt to run a series of tests in order to establish
|
||
|
the quality of your submission before the maintainer starts the review.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you are using ``git format-patch`` to generate your patches, you can
|
||
|
automatically include the base tree information in your submission by
|
||
|
using the ``--base`` flag. The easiest and most convenient way to use
|
||
|
this option is with topical branches::
|
||
|
|
||
|
$ git checkout -t -b my-topical-branch master
|
||
|
Branch 'my-topical-branch' set up to track local branch 'master'.
|
||
|
Switched to a new branch 'my-topical-branch'
|
||
|
|
||
|
[perform your edits and commits]
|
||
|
|
||
|
$ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
|
||
|
outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
|
||
|
outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
|
||
|
outgoing/...
|
||
|
|
||
|
When you open ``outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch`` for editing, you will
|
||
|
notice that it will have the ``base-commit:`` trailer at the very
|
||
|
bottom, which provides the reviewer and the CI tools enough information
|
||
|
to properly perform ``git am`` without worrying about conflicts::
|
||
|
|
||
|
$ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
|
||
|
Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
|
||
|
$ git am patches.mbox
|
||
|
Applying: First Commit
|
||
|
Applying: ...
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this
|
||
|
option.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. note::
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ``--base`` feature was introduced in git version 2.9.0.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you are not using git to format your patches, you can still include
|
||
|
the same ``base-commit`` trailer to indicate the commit hash of the tree
|
||
|
on which your work is based. You should add it either in the cover
|
||
|
letter or in the first patch of the series and it should be placed
|
||
|
either below the ``---`` line or at the very bottom of all other
|
||
|
content, right before your email signature.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
References
|
||
|
----------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
|
||
|
<https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
|
||
|
<https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
|
||
|
<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>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-06.html>
|
||
|
|
||
|
NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
|
||
|
<https://lore.kernel.org/r/20050711.125305.08322243.davem@davemloft.net>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Kernel Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
|
||
|
|
||
|
Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format:
|
||
|
<https://lore.kernel.org/r/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504071023190.28951@ppc970.osdl.org>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
|
||
|
Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in.
|
||
|
|
||
|
http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf
|