Lines Matching refs:to
2 How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
8 For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux
16 Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check before
22 control system; if you use git to prepare your patches, you'll find much
23 of the mechanical work done for you, though you'll still need to prepare
36 git to obtain one. You'll want to start with the mainline repository,
41 Note, however, that you may not want to develop against the mainline tree
42 directly. Most subsystem maintainers run their own trees and want to see
44 in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if
47 It is still possible to download kernel releases via tarballs (as described
48 in the next section), but that is the hard way to do kernel development.
54 to create patches. Git generates patches in this form by default; if
57 All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
58 generated by diff(1). When creating your patch, make sure to create it
59 in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1).
61 change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read.
65 To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
92 belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after-
93 generated it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy.
95 If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into
111 motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a
112 problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the
129 memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between
134 about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change
135 in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving
136 as you intend it to.
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.
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.
157 to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
160 If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
162 give a URL to the mailing list archive; use the https://lkml.kernel.org/
163 redirector with a Message-Id, to ensure that the links cannot become
166 However, try to make your explanation understandable without external
167 resources. In addition to giving a URL to a mailing list archive or
168 bug, summarize the relevant points of the discussion that led to the
171 If you want to refer to a specific commit, don't just refer to the
173 the commit, to make it easier for reviewers to know what it is about.
181 You should also be sure to use at least the first twelve characters of the
193 The following git-config settings can be used to add a pretty format for
211 On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
215 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
219 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
223 When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to
225 series. Developers using "git bisect" to track down a problem can end up
238 found in Documentation/CodingStyle. Failure to do so simply wastes
242 One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
246 actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
249 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
255 - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
259 You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
267 to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the
268 source code revision history to see who those maintainers are. The
273 You should also normally choose at least one mailing list to receive a copy
276 to tune it out. Look in the MAINTAINERS file for a subsystem-specific
284 Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
289 Linus directly, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
293 to security@kernel.org. For severe bugs, a short embargo may be considered
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.
304 Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own
305 conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees. The networking
307 adding lines like the above to their patches.
312 into the manual pages. User-space API changes should also be copied to
315 For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
336 Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
338 developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
343 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
347 attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your
348 code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
352 you to re-send them using MIME.
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
367 8) Respond to review comments.
371 which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments;
372 ignoring reviewers is a good way to get ignored in return. Review comments
373 or questions that do not lead to a code change should almost certainly
377 Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them
387 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
389 Once upon a time, patches used to disappear into the void without comment,
392 that you have sent your patches to the right place. Wait for a minimum of
400 Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
401 convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets Linus
411 percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
416 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
422 By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
425 have the right to submit it under the open source license
428 (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
430 license and I have the right under that license to submit that
433 permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
436 (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
453 now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
456 If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
457 modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
458 exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
459 rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
460 counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
461 the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
466 enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
470 [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
474 want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
479 Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice
480 to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
481 message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
498 Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
499 tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your
503 12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
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.
518 mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
519 into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
526 When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
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.
540 The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
541 hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future. Please note that if
547 some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
551 acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
557 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
561 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
562 have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied
563 with the submitter's response to my comments.
567 worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
570 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
578 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
579 reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
580 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
581 understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
585 named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this
588 idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the
592 is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated, which can help
618 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
629 The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails
646 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
647 google for the "summary phrase" to read discussion regarding that
655 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
663 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
664 comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for
683 then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
686 The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
687 changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long
689 have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the
693 it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just
695 it. As in the "summary phrase", it is important to be both succinct as
702 a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of
704 on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the
710 If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please
723 If you have a series of patches, it may be most convenient to have the
727 As a result, many subsystem maintainers are reluctant to take pull
740 to get these changes:"
745 The easiest way to get all this information together is, of course, to let
748 Some maintainers (including Linus) want to see pull requests from signed
753 The first step toward creating such tags is to make a GNUPG key and get it
756 be a good way to find developers who can sign your key.
758 Once you have prepared a patch series in git that you wish to have somebody
761 created with your private key. You will also have the opportunity to add a
762 changelog-style message to the tag; this is an ideal place to describe the
766 are working from, don't forget to push the signed tag explicitly to the
785 Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
793 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
803 Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in.