diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 331 |
1 files changed, 331 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..855a70b80 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst @@ -0,0 +1,331 @@ +.. _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 +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`, +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst <submittingdrivers>` +and :ref:`Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst <submitchecklist>`. + + +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 :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` +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 :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` + Code without a proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline. + + - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by several developers; + it is a used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author + attributed by the From: tag) when multiple people work on a single patch. + Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of + the associated co-author. Details and examples can be found in + :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`. + + - 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 :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` + 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. + + :ref:`Documentation/process/email-clients.rst <email_clients>` 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. |