mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-12-09 20:14:09 +08:00
8ee25f6fcf
Sometimes a single patch is the result of multiple authors. As git only can have one "author" of a patch, it is still good to properly give credit to the other developers of a commit. To address this, document the "Co-Developed-by:" tag which can be used to show other authors of the patch. Note, these other authors must also provide a Signed-off-by: tag as it is their work that is being submitted here. Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
327 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
327 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _development_posting:
|
|
|
|
Posting patches
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Sooner or later, the time comes when your work is ready to be presented to
|
|
the community for review and, eventually, inclusion into the mainline
|
|
kernel. Unsurprisingly, the kernel development community has evolved a set
|
|
of conventions and procedures which are used in the posting of patches;
|
|
following them will make life much easier for everybody involved. This
|
|
document will attempt to cover these expectations in reasonable detail;
|
|
more information can also be found in the files process/submitting-patches.rst,
|
|
process/submitting-drivers.rst, and process/submit-checklist.rst in the kernel documentation
|
|
directory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When to post
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
There is a constant temptation to avoid posting patches before they are
|
|
completely "ready." For simple patches, that is not a problem. If the
|
|
work being done is complex, though, there is a lot to be gained by getting
|
|
feedback from the community before the work is complete. So you should
|
|
consider posting in-progress work, or even making a git tree available so
|
|
that interested developers can catch up with your work at any time.
|
|
|
|
When posting code which is not yet considered ready for inclusion, it is a
|
|
good idea to say so in the posting itself. Also mention any major work
|
|
which remains to be done and any known problems. Fewer people will look at
|
|
patches which are known to be half-baked, but those who do will come in
|
|
with the idea that they can help you drive the work in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before creating patches
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
There are a number of things which should be done before you consider
|
|
sending patches to the development community. These include:
|
|
|
|
- Test the code to the extent that you can. Make use of the kernel's
|
|
debugging tools, ensure that the kernel will build with all reasonable
|
|
combinations of configuration options, use cross-compilers to build for
|
|
different architectures, etc.
|
|
|
|
- Make sure your code is compliant with the kernel coding style
|
|
guidelines.
|
|
|
|
- Does your change have performance implications? If so, you should run
|
|
benchmarks showing what the impact (or benefit) of your change is; a
|
|
summary of the results should be included with the patch.
|
|
|
|
- Be sure that you have the right to post the code. If this work was done
|
|
for an employer, the employer likely has a right to the work and must be
|
|
agreeable with its release under the GPL.
|
|
|
|
As a general rule, putting in some extra thought before posting code almost
|
|
always pays back the effort in short order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patch preparation
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
The preparation of patches for posting can be a surprising amount of work,
|
|
but, once again, attempting to save time here is not generally advisable
|
|
even in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Patches must be prepared against a specific version of the kernel. As a
|
|
general rule, a patch should be based on the current mainline as found in
|
|
Linus's git tree. When basing on mainline, start with a well-known release
|
|
point - a stable or -rc release - rather than branching off the mainline at
|
|
an arbitrary spot.
|
|
|
|
It may become necessary to make versions against -mm, linux-next, or a
|
|
subsystem tree, though, to facilitate wider testing and review. Depending
|
|
on the area of your patch and what is going on elsewhere, basing a patch
|
|
against these other trees can require a significant amount of work
|
|
resolving conflicts and dealing with API changes.
|
|
|
|
Only the most simple changes should be formatted as a single patch;
|
|
everything else should be made as a logical series of changes. Splitting
|
|
up patches is a bit of an art; some developers spend a long time figuring
|
|
out how to do it in the way that the community expects. There are a few
|
|
rules of thumb, however, which can help considerably:
|
|
|
|
- The patch series you post will almost certainly not be the series of
|
|
changes found in your working revision control system. Instead, the
|
|
changes you have made need to be considered in their final form, then
|
|
split apart in ways which make sense. The developers are interested in
|
|
discrete, self-contained changes, not the path you took to get to those
|
|
changes.
|
|
|
|
- Each logically independent change should be formatted as a separate
|
|
patch. These changes can be small ("add a field to this structure") or
|
|
large (adding a significant new driver, for example), but they should be
|
|
conceptually small and amenable to a one-line description. Each patch
|
|
should make a specific change which can be reviewed on its own and
|
|
verified to do what it says it does.
|
|
|
|
- As a way of restating the guideline above: do not mix different types of
|
|
changes in the same patch. If a single patch fixes a critical security
|
|
bug, rearranges a few structures, and reformats the code, there is a
|
|
good chance that it will be passed over and the important fix will be
|
|
lost.
|
|
|
|
- Each patch should yield a kernel which builds and runs properly; if your
|
|
patch series is interrupted in the middle, the result should still be a
|
|
working kernel. Partial application of a patch series is a common
|
|
scenario when the "git bisect" tool is used to find regressions; if the
|
|
result is a broken kernel, you will make life harder for developers and
|
|
users who are engaging in the noble work of tracking down problems.
|
|
|
|
- Do not overdo it, though. One developer once posted a set of edits
|
|
to a single file as 500 separate patches - an act which did not make him
|
|
the most popular person on the kernel mailing list. A single patch can
|
|
be reasonably large as long as it still contains a single *logical*
|
|
change.
|
|
|
|
- It can be tempting to add a whole new infrastructure with a series of
|
|
patches, but to leave that infrastructure unused until the final patch
|
|
in the series enables the whole thing. This temptation should be
|
|
avoided if possible; if that series adds regressions, bisection will
|
|
finger the last patch as the one which caused the problem, even though
|
|
the real bug is elsewhere. Whenever possible, a patch which adds new
|
|
code should make that code active immediately.
|
|
|
|
Working to create the perfect patch series can be a frustrating process
|
|
which takes quite a bit of time and thought after the "real work" has been
|
|
done. When done properly, though, it is time well spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patch formatting and changelogs
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
So now you have a perfect series of patches for posting, but the work is
|
|
not done quite yet. Each patch needs to be formatted into a message which
|
|
quickly and clearly communicates its purpose to the rest of the world. To
|
|
that end, each patch will be composed of the following:
|
|
|
|
- An optional "From" line naming the author of the patch. This line is
|
|
only necessary if you are passing on somebody else's patch via email,
|
|
but it never hurts to add it when in doubt.
|
|
|
|
- A one-line description of what the patch does. This message should be
|
|
enough for a reader who sees it with no other context to figure out the
|
|
scope of the patch; it is the line that will show up in the "short form"
|
|
changelogs. This message is usually formatted with the relevant
|
|
subsystem name first, followed by the purpose of the patch. For
|
|
example:
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
gpio: fix build on CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS=n
|
|
|
|
- A blank line followed by a detailed description of the contents of the
|
|
patch. This description can be as long as is required; it should say
|
|
what the patch does and why it should be applied to the kernel.
|
|
|
|
- One or more tag lines, with, at a minimum, one Signed-off-by: line from
|
|
the author of the patch. Tags will be described in more detail below.
|
|
|
|
The items above, together, form the changelog for the patch. Writing good
|
|
changelogs is a crucial but often-neglected art; it's worth spending
|
|
another moment discussing this issue. When writing a changelog, you should
|
|
bear in mind that a number of different people will be reading your words.
|
|
These include subsystem maintainers and reviewers who need to decide
|
|
whether the patch should be included, distributors and other maintainers
|
|
trying to decide whether a patch should be backported to other kernels, bug
|
|
hunters wondering whether the patch is responsible for a problem they are
|
|
chasing, users who want to know how the kernel has changed, and more. A
|
|
good changelog conveys the needed information to all of these people in the
|
|
most direct and concise way possible.
|
|
|
|
To that end, the summary line should describe the effects of and motivation
|
|
for the change as well as possible given the one-line constraint. The
|
|
detailed description can then amplify on those topics and provide any
|
|
needed additional information. If the patch fixes a bug, cite the commit
|
|
which introduced the bug if possible (and please provide both the commit ID
|
|
and the title when citing commits). If a problem is associated with
|
|
specific log or compiler output, include that output to help others
|
|
searching for a solution to the same problem. If the change is meant to
|
|
support other changes coming in later patch, say so. If internal APIs are
|
|
changed, detail those changes and how other developers should respond. In
|
|
general, the more you can put yourself into the shoes of everybody who will
|
|
be reading your changelog, the better that changelog (and the kernel as a
|
|
whole) will be.
|
|
|
|
Needless to say, the changelog should be the text used when committing the
|
|
change to a revision control system. It will be followed by:
|
|
|
|
- The patch itself, in the unified ("-u") patch format. Using the "-p"
|
|
option to diff will associate function names with changes, making the
|
|
resulting patch easier for others to read.
|
|
|
|
You should avoid including changes to irrelevant files (those generated by
|
|
the build process, for example, or editor backup files) in the patch. The
|
|
file "dontdiff" in the Documentation directory can help in this regard;
|
|
pass it to diff with the "-X" option.
|
|
|
|
The tags mentioned above are used to describe how various developers have
|
|
been associated with the development of this patch. They are described in
|
|
detail in the process/submitting-patches.rst document; what follows here is a brief
|
|
summary. Each of these lines has the format:
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
tag: Full Name <email address> optional-other-stuff
|
|
|
|
The tags in common use are:
|
|
|
|
- Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or she has
|
|
the right to submit the patch for inclusion into the kernel. It is an
|
|
agreement to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, the full text of
|
|
which can be found in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Code without a
|
|
proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline.
|
|
|
|
- Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
|
|
along with the original author. This is useful at times when multiple
|
|
people work on a single patch. Note, this person also needs to have a
|
|
Signed-off-by: line in the patch as well.
|
|
|
|
- Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
|
|
maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
|
|
inclusion into the kernel.
|
|
|
|
- Tested-by: states that the named person has tested the patch and found
|
|
it to work.
|
|
|
|
- Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness;
|
|
see the reviewer's statement in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for more
|
|
detail.
|
|
|
|
- Reported-by: names a user who reported a problem which is fixed by this
|
|
patch; this tag is used to give credit to the (often underappreciated)
|
|
people who test our code and let us know when things do not work
|
|
correctly.
|
|
|
|
- Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the
|
|
opportunity to comment on it.
|
|
|
|
Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches: only Cc: is appropriate
|
|
for addition without the explicit permission of the person named.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sending the patch
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Before you mail your patches, there are a couple of other things you should
|
|
take care of:
|
|
|
|
- Are you sure that your mailer will not corrupt the patches? Patches
|
|
which have had gratuitous white-space changes or line wrapping performed
|
|
by the mail client will not apply at the other end, and often will not
|
|
be examined in any detail. If there is any doubt at all, mail the patch
|
|
to yourself and convince yourself that it shows up intact.
|
|
|
|
Documentation/process/email-clients.rst has some helpful hints on making
|
|
specific mail clients work for sending patches.
|
|
|
|
- Are you sure your patch is free of silly mistakes? You should always
|
|
run patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl and address the complaints it
|
|
comes up with. Please bear in mind that checkpatch.pl, while being the
|
|
embodiment of a fair amount of thought about what kernel patches should
|
|
look like, is not smarter than you. If fixing a checkpatch.pl complaint
|
|
would make the code worse, don't do it.
|
|
|
|
Patches should always be sent as plain text. Please do not send them as
|
|
attachments; that makes it much harder for reviewers to quote sections of
|
|
the patch in their replies. Instead, just put the patch directly into your
|
|
message.
|
|
|
|
When mailing patches, it is important to send copies to anybody who might
|
|
be interested in it. Unlike some other projects, the kernel encourages
|
|
people to err on the side of sending too many copies; don't assume that the
|
|
relevant people will see your posting on the mailing lists. In particular,
|
|
copies should go to:
|
|
|
|
- The maintainer(s) of the affected subsystem(s). As described earlier,
|
|
the MAINTAINERS file is the first place to look for these people.
|
|
|
|
- Other developers who have been working in the same area - especially
|
|
those who might be working there now. Using git to see who else has
|
|
modified the files you are working on can be helpful.
|
|
|
|
- If you are responding to a bug report or a feature request, copy the
|
|
original poster as well.
|
|
|
|
- Send a copy to the relevant mailing list, or, if nothing else applies,
|
|
the linux-kernel list.
|
|
|
|
- If you are fixing a bug, think about whether the fix should go into the
|
|
next stable update. If so, stable@vger.kernel.org should get a copy of
|
|
the patch. Also add a "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" to the tags within
|
|
the patch itself; that will cause the stable team to get a notification
|
|
when your fix goes into the mainline.
|
|
|
|
When selecting recipients for a patch, it is good to have an idea of who
|
|
you think will eventually accept the patch and get it merged. While it
|
|
is possible to send patches directly to Linus Torvalds and have him merge
|
|
them, things are not normally done that way. Linus is busy, and there are
|
|
subsystem maintainers who watch over specific parts of the kernel. Usually
|
|
you will be wanting that maintainer to merge your patches. If there is no
|
|
obvious maintainer, Andrew Morton is often the patch target of last resort.
|
|
|
|
Patches need good subject lines. The canonical format for a patch line is
|
|
something like:
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
[PATCH nn/mm] subsys: one-line description of the patch
|
|
|
|
where "nn" is the ordinal number of the patch, "mm" is the total number of
|
|
patches in the series, and "subsys" is the name of the affected subsystem.
|
|
Clearly, nn/mm can be omitted for a single, standalone patch.
|
|
|
|
If you have a significant series of patches, it is customary to send an
|
|
introductory description as part zero. This convention is not universally
|
|
followed though; if you use it, remember that information in the
|
|
introduction does not make it into the kernel changelogs. So please ensure
|
|
that the patches, themselves, have complete changelog information.
|
|
|
|
In general, the second and following parts of a multi-part patch should be
|
|
sent as a reply to the first part so that they all thread together at the
|
|
receiving end. Tools like git and quilt have commands to mail out a set of
|
|
patches with the proper threading. If you have a long series, though, and
|
|
are using git, please stay away from the --chain-reply-to option to avoid
|
|
creating exceptionally deep nesting.
|