Lines Matching refs:patch
58 generated by diff(1). When creating your patch, make sure to create it
65 To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
74 diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch
76 To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
85 linux-3.19-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
89 patch.
91 Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
92 belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after-
98 very important if you want your patch accepted.
109 Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
138 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
142 Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
143 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
146 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
147 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
148 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
149 subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
150 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
151 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
153 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
156 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
160 If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
161 number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion,
169 patch as submitted.
187 If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
204 Separate each _logical change_ into a separate patch.
212 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
213 is contained within a single patch.
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
219 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
220 complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
221 in your patch description.
224 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
226 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
229 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
237 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
239 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
244 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
249 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
260 patch.
263 5) Select the recipients for your patch.
266 You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
274 of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org functions as a list of
277 list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not
292 If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
294 to allow distrbutors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
295 obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
302 into your patch.
310 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
328 Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
342 WARNING: Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
343 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
345 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
361 maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
362 it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
363 server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note
364 that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up
370 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
371 which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments;
387 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
416 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
417 pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
480 to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
490 And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported:
507 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
510 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
511 ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
514 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
517 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
522 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
523 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
529 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
530 provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
533 patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
545 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
550 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
557 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
561 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
570 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
575 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
578 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
580 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
582 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
584 A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
591 A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
595 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See #2 above for more details.
598 14) The canonical patch format
601 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
602 that, if you have your patches stored in a git repository, proper patch
603 formatting can be had with "git format-patch". The tools cannot create
606 The canonical patch subject line is:
610 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
612 - A "from" line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person
613 sending the patch is not the author).
618 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
627 - The actual patch (diff output).
638 describe the patch which that email contains. The "summary
640 phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
644 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
646 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
648 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
654 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
655 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
661 considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
663 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
665 comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
669 the patch series.
673 Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
682 patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing,
684 the patch author in the changelog.
689 have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the
690 patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
692 looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure,
694 enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
698 The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
706 here. A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
708 patch.
716 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
729 the pull request as the cover letter for a normal posting of the patch
744 themselves, and a diffstat showing the overall effect of the patch series.
758 Once you have prepared a patch series in git that you wish to have somebody
779 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
782 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
783 <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
793 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
799 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: