Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15upstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

8 files changed, 884 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0a3683181
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Configuring Git
+===============
+
+This chapter describes maintainer level git configuration.
+
+Tagged branches used in pull requests (see
+Documentation/maintainer/pull-requests.rst) should be signed with the
+developers public GPG key. Signed tags can be created by passing
+``-u <key-id>`` to ``git tag``. However, since you would *usually* use the same
+key for the project, you can set it in the configuration and use the ``-s``
+flag. To set the default ``key-id`` use::
+
+	git config user.signingkey "keyname"
+
+Alternatively, edit your ``.git/config`` or ``~/.gitconfig`` file by hand::
+
+	[user]
+		name = Jane Developer
+		email = jd@domain.org
+		signingkey = jd@domain.org
+
+You may need to tell ``git`` to use ``gpg2``::
+
+	[gpg]
+		program = /path/to/gpg2
+
+You may also like to tell ``gpg`` which ``tty`` to use (add to your shell
+rc file)::
+
+	export GPG_TTY=$(tty)
+
+
+Creating commit links to lore.kernel.org
+----------------------------------------
+
+The web site https://lore.kernel.org is meant as a grand archive of all mail
+list traffic concerning or influencing the kernel development. Storing archives
+of patches here is a recommended practice, and when a maintainer applies a
+patch to a subsystem tree, it is a good idea to provide a Link: tag with a
+reference back to the lore archive so that people that browse the commit
+history can find related discussions and rationale behind a certain change.
+The link tag will look like this::
+
+    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id>
+
+This can be configured to happen automatically any time you issue ``git am``
+by adding the following hook into your git::
+
+	$ git config am.messageid true
+	$ cat >.git/hooks/applypatch-msg <<'EOF'
+	#!/bin/sh
+	. git-sh-setup
+	perl -pi -e 's|^Message-I[dD]:\s*<?([^>]+)>?$|Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/$1|g;' "$1"
+	test -x "$GIT_DIR/hooks/commit-msg" &&
+		exec "$GIT_DIR/hooks/commit-msg" ${1+"$@"}
+	:
+	EOF
+	$ chmod a+x .git/hooks/applypatch-msg
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/feature-and-driver-maintainers.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/feature-and-driver-maintainers.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f04cc183e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/feature-and-driver-maintainers.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+==============================
+Feature and driver maintainers
+==============================
+
+The term "maintainer" spans a very wide range of levels of engagement
+from people handling patches and pull requests as almost a full time job
+to people responsible for a small feature or a driver.
+
+Unlike most of the chapter, this section is meant for the latter (more
+populous) group. It provides tips and describes the expectations and
+responsibilities of maintainers of a small(ish) section of the code.
+
+Drivers and alike most often do not have their own mailing lists and
+git trees but instead send and review patches on the list of a larger
+subsystem.
+
+Responsibilities
+================
+
+The amount of maintenance work is usually proportional to the size
+and popularity of the code base. Small features and drivers should
+require relatively small amount of care and feeding. Nonetheless
+when the work does arrive (in form of patches which need review,
+user bug reports etc.) it has to be acted upon promptly.
+Even when a particular driver only sees one patch a month, or a quarter,
+a subsystem could well have a hundred such drivers. Subsystem
+maintainers cannot afford to wait a long time to hear from reviewers.
+
+The exact expectations on the response time will vary by subsystem.
+The patch review SLA the subsystem had set for itself can sometimes
+be found in the subsystem documentation. Failing that as a rule of thumb
+reviewers should try to respond quicker than what is the usual patch
+review delay of the subsystem maintainer. The resulting expectations
+may range from two working days for fast-paced subsystems (e.g. networking)
+to as long as a few weeks in slower moving parts of the kernel.
+
+Mailing list participation
+--------------------------
+
+Linux kernel uses mailing lists as the primary form of communication.
+Maintainers must be subscribed and follow the appropriate subsystem-wide
+mailing list. Either by subscribing to the whole list or using more
+modern, selective setup like
+`lei <https://people.kernel.org/monsieuricon/lore-lei-part-1-getting-started>`_.
+
+Maintainers must know how to communicate on the list (plain text, no invasive
+legal footers, no top posting, etc.)
+
+Reviews
+-------
+
+Maintainers must review *all* patches touching exclusively their drivers,
+no matter how trivial. If the patch is a tree wide change and modifies
+multiple drivers - whether to provide a review is left to the maintainer.
+
+When there are multiple maintainers for a piece of code an ``Acked-by``
+or ``Reviewed-by`` tag (or review comments) from a single maintainer is
+enough to satisfy this requirement.
+
+If the review process or validation for a particular change will take longer
+than the expected review timeline for the subsystem, maintainer should
+reply to the submission indicating that the work is being done, and when
+to expect full results.
+
+Refactoring and core changes
+----------------------------
+
+Occasionally core code needs to be changed to improve the maintainability
+of the kernel as a whole. Maintainers are expected to be present and
+help guide and test changes to their code to fit the new infrastructure.
+
+Bug reports
+-----------
+
+Maintainers must ensure severe problems in their code reported to them
+are resolved in a timely manner: regressions, kernel crashes, kernel warnings,
+compilation errors, lockups, data loss, and other bugs of similar scope.
+
+Maintainers furthermore should respond to reports about other kinds of
+bugs as well, if the report is of reasonable quality or indicates a
+problem that might be severe -- especially if they have *Supported*
+status of the codebase in the MAINTAINERS file.
+
+Selecting the maintainer
+========================
+
+The previous section described the expectations of the maintainer,
+this section provides guidance on selecting one and describes common
+misconceptions.
+
+The author
+----------
+
+Most natural and common choice of a maintainer is the author of the code.
+The author is intimately familiar with the code, so it is the best person
+to take care of it on an ongoing basis.
+
+That said, being a maintainer is an active role. The MAINTAINERS file
+is not a list of credits (in fact a separate CREDITS file exists),
+it is a list of those who will actively help with the code.
+If the author does not have the time, interest or ability to maintain
+the code, a different maintainer must be selected.
+
+Multiple maintainers
+--------------------
+
+Modern best practices dictate that there should be at least two maintainers
+for any piece of code, no matter how trivial. It spreads the burden, helps
+people take vacations and prevents burnout, trains new members of
+the community etc. etc. Even when there is clearly one perfect candidate,
+another maintainer should be found.
+
+Maintainers must be human, therefore, it is not acceptable to add a mailing
+list or a group email as a maintainer. Trust and understanding are the
+foundation of kernel maintenance and one cannot build trust with a mailing
+list. Having a mailing list *in addition* to humans is perfectly fine.
+
+Corporate structures
+--------------------
+
+To an outsider the Linux kernel may resemble a hierarchical organization
+with Linus as the CEO. While the code flows in a hierarchical fashion,
+the corporate template does not apply here. Linux is an anarchy held
+together by (rarely expressed) mutual respect, trust and convenience.
+
+All that is to say that managers almost never make good maintainers.
+The maintainer position more closely matches an on-call rotation
+than a position of power.
+
+The following characteristics of a person selected as a maintainer
+are clear red flags:
+
+ - unknown to the community, never sent an email to the list before
+ - did not author any of the code
+ - (when development is contracted) works for a company which paid
+   for the development rather than the company which did the work
+
+Non compliance
+==============
+
+Subsystem maintainers may remove inactive maintainers from the MAINTAINERS
+file. If the maintainer was a significant author or played an important
+role in the development of the code, they should be moved to the CREDITS file.
+
+Removing an inactive maintainer should not be seen as a punitive action.
+Having an inactive maintainer has a real cost as all developers have
+to remember to include the maintainers in discussions and subsystem
+maintainers spend brain power figuring out how to solicit feedback.
+
+Subsystem maintainers may remove code for lacking maintenance.
+
+Subsystem maintainers may refuse accepting code from companies
+which repeatedly neglected their maintainership duties.
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..eeee27f8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/index.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+==========================
+Kernel Maintainer Handbook
+==========================
+
+This document is the humble beginning of a manual for kernel maintainers.
+There is a lot yet to go here!  Please feel free to propose (and write)
+additions to this manual.
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 2
+
+   feature-and-driver-maintainers
+   configure-git
+   rebasing-and-merging
+   pull-requests
+   messy-diffstat
+   maintainer-entry-profile
+   modifying-patches
+
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6b64072d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/maintainer-entry-profile.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+.. _maintainerentryprofile:
+
+Maintainer Entry Profile
+========================
+
+The Maintainer Entry Profile supplements the top-level process documents
+(submitting-patches, submitting drivers...) with
+subsystem/device-driver-local customs as well as details about the patch
+submission life-cycle. A contributor uses this document to level set
+their expectations and avoid common mistakes; maintainers may use these
+profiles to look across subsystems for opportunities to converge on
+common practices.
+
+
+Overview
+--------
+Provide an introduction to how the subsystem operates. While MAINTAINERS
+tells the contributor where to send patches for which files, it does not
+convey other subsystem-local infrastructure and mechanisms that aid
+development.
+
+Example questions to consider:
+
+- Are there notifications when patches are applied to the local tree, or
+  merged upstream?
+- Does the subsystem have a patchwork instance? Are patchwork state
+  changes notified?
+- Any bots or CI infrastructure that watches the list, or automated
+  testing feedback that the subsystem uses to gate acceptance?
+- Git branches that are pulled into -next?
+- What branch should contributors submit against?
+- Links to any other Maintainer Entry Profiles? For example a
+  device-driver may point to an entry for its parent subsystem. This makes
+  the contributor aware of obligations a maintainer may have for
+  other maintainers in the submission chain.
+
+
+Submit Checklist Addendum
+-------------------------
+List mandatory and advisory criteria, beyond the common "submit-checklist",
+for a patch to be considered healthy enough for maintainer attention.
+For example: "pass checkpatch.pl with no errors, or warning. Pass the
+unit test detailed at $URI".
+
+The Submit Checklist Addendum can also include details about the status
+of related hardware specifications. For example, does the subsystem
+require published specifications at a certain revision before patches
+will be considered.
+
+
+Key Cycle Dates
+---------------
+One of the common misunderstandings of submitters is that patches can be
+sent at any time before the merge window closes and can still be
+considered for the next -rc1. The reality is that most patches need to
+be settled in soaking in linux-next in advance of the merge window
+opening. Clarify for the submitter the key dates (in terms of -rc release
+week) that patches might be considered for merging and when patches need to
+wait for the next -rc. At a minimum:
+
+- Last -rc for new feature submissions:
+  New feature submissions targeting the next merge window should have
+  their first posting for consideration before this point. Patches that
+  are submitted after this point should be clear that they are targeting
+  the NEXT+1 merge window, or should come with sufficient justification
+  why they should be considered on an expedited schedule. A general
+  guideline is to set expectation with contributors that new feature
+  submissions should appear before -rc5.
+
+- Last -rc to merge features: Deadline for merge decisions
+  Indicate to contributors the point at which an as yet un-applied patch
+  set will need to wait for the NEXT+1 merge window. Of course there is no
+  obligation to ever accept any given patchset, but if the review has not
+  concluded by this point the expectation is the contributor should wait and
+  resubmit for the following merge window.
+
+Optional:
+
+- First -rc at which the development baseline branch, listed in the
+  overview section, should be considered ready for new submissions.
+
+
+Review Cadence
+--------------
+One of the largest sources of contributor angst is how soon to ping
+after a patchset has been posted without receiving any feedback. In
+addition to specifying how long to wait before a resubmission this
+section can also indicate a preferred style of update like, resend the
+full series, or privately send a reminder email. This section might also
+list how review works for this code area and methods to get feedback
+that are not directly from the maintainer.
+
+Existing profiles
+-----------------
+
+For now, existing maintainer profiles are listed here; we will likely want
+to do something different in the near future.
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 1
+
+   ../doc-guide/maintainer-profile
+   ../nvdimm/maintainer-entry-profile
+   ../riscv/patch-acceptance
+   ../driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile
+   ../driver-api/vfio-pci-device-specific-driver-acceptance
+   ../nvme/feature-and-quirk-policy
+   ../filesystems/xfs-maintainer-entry-profile
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/messy-diffstat.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/messy-diffstat.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c015f66d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/messy-diffstat.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+=====================================
+Handling messy pull-request diffstats
+=====================================
+
+Subsystem maintainers routinely use ``git request-pull`` as part of the
+process of sending work upstream.  Normally, the result includes a nice
+diffstat that shows which files will be touched and how much of each will
+be changed.  Occasionally, though, a repository with a relatively
+complicated development history will yield a massive diffstat containing a
+great deal of unrelated work.  The result looks ugly and obscures what the
+pull request is actually doing.  This document describes what is happening
+and how to fix things up; it is derived from The Wisdom of Linus Torvalds,
+found in Linus1_ and Linus2_.
+
+.. _Linus1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wg3wXH2JNxkQi+eLZkpuxqV+wPiHhw_Jf7ViH33Sw7PHA@mail.gmail.com/
+.. _Linus2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgXbSa8yq8Dht8at+gxb_idnJ7X5qWZQWRBN4_CUPr=eQ@mail.gmail.com/
+
+A Git development history proceeds as a series of commits.  In a simplified
+manner, mainline kernel development looks like this::
+
+  ... vM --- vN-rc1 --- vN-rc2 --- vN-rc3 --- ... --- vN-rc7 --- vN
+
+If one wants to see what has changed between two points, a command like
+this will do the job::
+
+  $ git diff --stat --summary vN-rc2..vN-rc3
+
+Here, there are two clear points in the history; Git will essentially
+"subtract" the beginning point from the end point and display the resulting
+differences.  The requested operation is unambiguous and easy enough to
+understand.
+
+When a subsystem maintainer creates a branch and commits changes to it, the
+result in the simplest case is a history that looks like::
+
+  ... vM --- vN-rc1 --- vN-rc2 --- vN-rc3 --- ... --- vN-rc7 --- vN
+                          |
+                          +-- c1 --- c2 --- ... --- cN
+
+If that maintainer now uses ``git diff`` to see what has changed between
+the mainline branch (let's call it "linus") and cN, there are still two
+clear endpoints, and the result is as expected.  So a pull request
+generated with ``git request-pull`` will also be as expected.  But now
+consider a slightly more complex development history::
+
+  ... vM --- vN-rc1 --- vN-rc2 --- vN-rc3 --- ... --- vN-rc7 --- vN
+                |         |
+                |         +-- c1 --- c2 --- ... --- cN
+                |                   /
+                +-- x1 --- x2 --- x3
+
+Our maintainer has created one branch at vN-rc1 and another at vN-rc2; the
+two were then subsequently merged into c2.  Now a pull request generated
+for cN may end up being messy indeed, and developers often end up wondering
+why.
+
+What is happening here is that there are no longer two clear end points for
+the ``git diff`` operation to use.  The development culminating in cN
+started in two different places; to generate the diffstat, ``git diff``
+ends up having pick one of them and hoping for the best.  If the diffstat
+starts at vN-rc1, it may end up including all of the changes between there
+and the second origin end point (vN-rc2), which is certainly not what our
+maintainer had in mind.  With all of that extra junk in the diffstat, it
+may be impossible to tell what actually happened in the changes leading up
+to cN.
+
+Maintainers often try to resolve this problem by, for example, rebasing the
+branch or performing another merge with the linus branch, then recreating
+the pull request.  This approach tends not to lead to joy at the receiving
+end of that pull request; rebasing and/or merging just before pushing
+upstream is a well-known way to get a grumpy response.
+
+So what is to be done?  The best response when confronted with this
+situation is to indeed to do a merge with the branch you intend your work
+to be pulled into, but to do it privately, as if it were the source of
+shame.  Create a new, throwaway branch and do the merge there::
+
+  ... vM --- vN-rc1 --- vN-rc2 --- vN-rc3 --- ... --- vN-rc7 --- vN
+                |         |                                      |
+                |         +-- c1 --- c2 --- ... --- cN           |
+                |                   /               |            |
+                +-- x1 --- x2 --- x3                +------------+-- TEMP
+
+The merge operation resolves all of the complications resulting from the
+multiple beginning points, yielding a coherent result that contains only
+the differences from the mainline branch.  Now it will be possible to
+generate a diffstat with the desired information::
+
+  $ git diff -C --stat --summary linus..TEMP
+
+Save the output from this command, then simply delete the TEMP branch;
+definitely do not expose it to the outside world.  Take the saved diffstat
+output and edit it into the messy pull request, yielding a result that
+shows what is really going on.  That request can then be sent upstream.
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/modifying-patches.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/modifying-patches.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..58385d2e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/modifying-patches.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+.. _modifyingpatches:
+
+Modifying Patches
+=================
+
+If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
+modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
+exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
+rule (c) of the developers certificate of origin, you should ask the submitter
+to rediff, but this is a totally counter-productive waste of time and energy.
+Rule (b) allows you to adjust the code, but then it is very impolite to change
+one submitters code and make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it
+is recommended that you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and
+yours, indicating the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory
+about this, it seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or
+name, all enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious
+that you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example::
+
+       Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
+       [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
+       Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
+
+This practice is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
+want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
+and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
+can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
+which appears in the changelog.
+
+Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice
+to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
+message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
+here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release::
+
+  Date:   Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400
+
+    libata: Un-break ATA blacklist
+
+    commit 1c40279960bcd7d52dbdf1d466b20d24b99176c8 upstream.
+
+And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported::
+
+    Date:   Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
+
+        wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay
+
+        [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a]
+
+Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
+tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your
+tree.
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/pull-requests.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/pull-requests.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..00b200fac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/pull-requests.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+Creating Pull Requests
+======================
+
+This chapter describes how maintainers can create and submit pull requests
+to other maintainers. This is useful for transferring changes from one
+maintainers tree to another maintainers tree.
+
+This document was written by Tobin C. Harding (who at that time, was not an
+experienced maintainer) primarily from comments made by Greg Kroah-Hartman
+and Linus Torvalds on LKML. Suggestions and fixes by Jonathan Corbet and
+Mauro Carvalho Chehab.  Misrepresentation was unintentional but inevitable,
+please direct abuse to Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>.
+
+Original email thread::
+
+	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20171114110500.GA21175@kroah.com
+
+
+Create Branch
+-------------
+
+To start with you will need to have all the changes you wish to include in
+the pull request on a separate branch. Typically you will base this branch
+off of a branch in the developers tree whom you intend to send the pull
+request to.
+
+In order to create the pull request you must first tag the branch that you
+have just created. It is recommended that you choose a meaningful tag name,
+in a way that you and others can understand, even after some time.  A good
+practice is to include in the name an indicator of the subsystem of origin
+and the target kernel version.
+
+Greg offers the following. A pull request with miscellaneous stuff for
+drivers/char, to be applied at the Kernel version 4.15-rc1 could be named
+as ``char-misc-4.15-rc1``. If such tag would be produced from a branch
+named ``char-misc-next``, you would be using the following command::
+
+        git tag -s char-misc-4.15-rc1 char-misc-next
+
+that will create a signed tag called ``char-misc-4.15-rc1`` based on the
+last commit in the ``char-misc-next`` branch, and sign it with your gpg key
+(see Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst).
+
+Linus will only accept pull requests based on a signed tag. Other
+maintainers may differ.
+
+When you run the above command ``git`` will drop you into an editor and ask
+you to describe the tag.  In this case, you are describing a pull request,
+so outline what is contained here, why it should be merged, and what, if
+any, testing has been done.  All of this information will end up in the tag
+itself, and then in the merge commit that the maintainer makes if/when they
+merge the pull request. So write it up well, as it will be in the kernel
+tree for forever.
+
+As said by Linus::
+
+	Anyway, at least to me, the important part is the *message*. I want
+	to understand what I'm pulling, and why I should pull it. I also
+	want to use that message as the message for the merge, so it should
+	not just make sense to me, but make sense as a historical record
+	too.
+
+	Note that if there is something odd about the pull request, that
+	should very much be in the explanation. If you're touching files
+	that you don't maintain, explain _why_. I will see it in the
+	diffstat anyway, and if you didn't mention it, I'll just be extra
+	suspicious.  And when you send me new stuff after the merge window
+	(or even bug-fixes, but ones that look scary), explain not just
+	what they do and why they do it, but explain the _timing_. What
+	happened that this didn't go through the merge window..
+
+	I will take both what you write in the email pull request _and_ in
+	the signed tag, so depending on your workflow, you can either
+	describe your work in the signed tag (which will also automatically
+	make it into the pull request email), or you can make the signed
+	tag just a placeholder with nothing interesting in it, and describe
+	the work later when you actually send me the pull request.
+
+	And yes, I will edit the message. Partly because I tend to do just
+	trivial formatting (the whole indentation and quoting etc), but
+	partly because part of the message may make sense for me at pull
+	time (describing the conflicts and your personal issues for sending
+	it right now), but may not make sense in the context of a merge
+	commit message, so I will try to make it all make sense. I will
+	also fix any speeling mistaeks and bad grammar I notice,
+	particularly for non-native speakers (but also for native ones
+	;^). But I may miss some, or even add some.
+
+			Linus
+
+Greg gives, as an example pull request::
+
+	Char/Misc patches for 4.15-rc1
+
+	Here is the big char/misc patch set for the 4.15-rc1 merge window.
+	Contained in here is the normal set of new functions added to all
+	of these crazy drivers, as well as the following brand new
+	subsystems:
+		- time_travel_controller: Finally a set of drivers for the
+		  latest time travel bus architecture that provides i/o to
+		  the CPU before it asked for it, allowing uninterrupted
+		  processing
+		- relativity_shifters: due to the affect that the
+		  time_travel_controllers have on the overall system, there
+		  was a need for a new set of relativity shifter drivers to
+		  accommodate the newly formed black holes that would
+		  threaten to suck CPUs into them.  This subsystem handles
+		  this in a way to successfully neutralize the problems.
+		  There is a Kconfig option to force these to be enabled
+		  when needed, so problems should not occur.
+
+	All of these patches have been successfully tested in the latest
+	linux-next releases, and the original problems that it found have
+	all been resolved (apologies to anyone living near Canberra for the
+	lack of the Kconfig options in the earlier versions of the
+	linux-next tree creations.)
+
+	Signed-off-by: Your-name-here <your_email@domain>
+
+
+The tag message format is just like a git commit id.  One line at the top
+for a "summary subject" and be sure to sign-off at the bottom.
+
+Now that you have a local signed tag, you need to push it up to where it
+can be retrieved::
+
+	git push origin char-misc-4.15-rc1
+
+
+Create Pull Request
+-------------------
+
+The last thing to do is create the pull request message.  ``git`` handily
+will do this for you with the ``git request-pull`` command, but it needs a
+bit of help determining what you want to pull, and on what to base the pull
+against (to show the correct changes to be pulled and the diffstat). The
+following command(s) will generate a pull request::
+
+	git request-pull master git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git/ char-misc-4.15-rc1
+
+Quoting Greg::
+
+	This is asking git to compare the difference from the
+	'char-misc-4.15-rc1' tag location, to the head of the 'master'
+	branch (which in my case points to the last location in Linus's
+	tree that I diverged from, usually a -rc release) and to use the
+	git:// protocol to pull from.  If you wish to use https://, that
+	can be used here instead as well (but note that some people behind
+	firewalls will have problems with https git pulls).
+
+	If the char-misc-4.15-rc1 tag is not present in the repo that I am
+	asking to be pulled from, git will complain saying it is not there,
+	a handy way to remember to actually push it to a public location.
+
+	The output of 'git request-pull' will contain the location of the
+	git tree and specific tag to pull from, and the full text
+	description of that tag (which is why you need to provide good
+	information in that tag).  It will also create a diffstat of the
+	pull request, and a shortlog of the individual commits that the
+	pull request will provide.
+
+Linus responded that he tends to prefer the ``git://`` protocol. Other
+maintainers may have different preferences. Also, note that if you are
+creating pull requests without a signed tag then ``https://`` may be a
+better choice. Please see the original thread for the full discussion.
+
+
+Submit Pull Request
+-------------------
+
+A pull request is submitted in the same way as an ordinary patch. Send as
+inline email to the maintainer and CC LKML and any sub-system specific
+lists if required. Pull requests to Linus typically have a subject line
+something like::
+
+	[GIT PULL] <subsystem> changes for v4.15-rc1
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..85800ce95
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+====================
+Rebasing and merging
+====================
+
+Maintaining a subsystem, as a general rule, requires a familiarity with the
+Git source-code management system.  Git is a powerful tool with a lot of
+features; as is often the case with such tools, there are right and wrong
+ways to use those features.  This document looks in particular at the use
+of rebasing and merging.  Maintainers often get in trouble when they use
+those tools incorrectly, but avoiding problems is not actually all that
+hard.
+
+One thing to be aware of in general is that, unlike many other projects,
+the kernel community is not scared by seeing merge commits in its
+development history.  Indeed, given the scale of the project, avoiding
+merges would be nearly impossible.  Some problems encountered by
+maintainers result from a desire to avoid merges, while others come from
+merging a little too often.
+
+Rebasing
+========
+
+"Rebasing" is the process of changing the history of a series of commits
+within a repository.  There are two different types of operations that are
+referred to as rebasing since both are done with the ``git rebase``
+command, but there are significant differences between them:
+
+ - Changing the parent (starting) commit upon which a series of patches is
+   built.  For example, a rebase operation could take a patch set built on
+   the previous kernel release and base it, instead, on the current
+   release.  We'll call this operation "reparenting" in the discussion
+   below.
+
+ - Changing the history of a set of patches by fixing (or deleting) broken
+   commits, adding patches, adding tags to commit changelogs, or changing
+   the order in which commits are applied.  In the following text, this
+   type of operation will be referred to as "history modification"
+
+The term "rebasing" will be used to refer to both of the above operations.
+Used properly, rebasing can yield a cleaner and clearer development
+history; used improperly, it can obscure that history and introduce bugs.
+
+There are a few rules of thumb that can help developers to avoid the worst
+perils of rebasing:
+
+ - History that has been exposed to the world beyond your private system
+   should usually not be changed.  Others may have pulled a copy of your
+   tree and built on it; modifying your tree will create pain for them.  If
+   work is in need of rebasing, that is usually a sign that it is not yet
+   ready to be committed to a public repository.
+
+   That said, there are always exceptions.  Some trees (linux-next being
+   a significant example) are frequently rebased by their nature, and
+   developers know not to base work on them.  Developers will sometimes
+   expose an unstable branch for others to test with or for automated
+   testing services.  If you do expose a branch that may be unstable in
+   this way, be sure that prospective users know not to base work on it.
+
+ - Do not rebase a branch that contains history created by others.  If you
+   have pulled changes from another developer's repository, you are now a
+   custodian of their history.  You should not change it.  With few
+   exceptions, for example, a broken commit in a tree like this should be
+   explicitly reverted rather than disappeared via history modification.
+
+ - Do not reparent a tree without a good reason to do so.  Just being on a
+   newer base or avoiding a merge with an upstream repository is not
+   generally a good reason.
+
+ - If you must reparent a repository, do not pick some random kernel commit
+   as the new base.  The kernel is often in a relatively unstable state
+   between release points; basing development on one of those points
+   increases the chances of running into surprising bugs.  When a patch
+   series must move to a new base, pick a stable point (such as one of
+   the -rc releases) to move to.
+
+ - Realize that reparenting a patch series (or making significant history
+   modifications) changes the environment in which it was developed and,
+   likely, invalidates much of the testing that was done.  A reparented
+   patch series should, as a general rule, be treated like new code and
+   retested from the beginning.
+
+A frequent cause of merge-window trouble is when Linus is presented with a
+patch series that has clearly been reparented, often to a random commit,
+shortly before the pull request was sent.  The chances of such a series
+having been adequately tested are relatively low - as are the chances of
+the pull request being acted upon.
+
+If, instead, rebasing is limited to private trees, commits are based on a
+well-known starting point, and they are well tested, the potential for
+trouble is low.
+
+Merging
+=======
+
+Merging is a common operation in the kernel development process; the 5.1
+development cycle included 1,126 merge commits - nearly 9% of the total.
+Kernel work is accumulated in over 100 different subsystem trees, each of
+which may contain multiple topic branches; each branch is usually developed
+independently of the others.  So naturally, at least one merge will be
+required before any given branch finds its way into an upstream repository.
+
+Many projects require that branches in pull requests be based on the
+current trunk so that no merge commits appear in the history.  The kernel
+is not such a project; any rebasing of branches to avoid merges will, most
+likely, lead to trouble.
+
+Subsystem maintainers find themselves having to do two types of merges:
+from lower-level subsystem trees and from others, either sibling trees or
+the mainline.  The best practices to follow differ in those two situations.
+
+Merging from lower-level trees
+------------------------------
+
+Larger subsystems tend to have multiple levels of maintainers, with the
+lower-level maintainers sending pull requests to the higher levels.  Acting
+on such a pull request will almost certainly generate a merge commit; that
+is as it should be.  In fact, subsystem maintainers may want to use
+the --no-ff flag to force the addition of a merge commit in the rare cases
+where one would not normally be created so that the reasons for the merge
+can be recorded.  The changelog for the merge should, for any kind of
+merge, say *why* the merge is being done.  For a lower-level tree, "why" is
+usually a summary of the changes that will come with that pull.
+
+Maintainers at all levels should be using signed tags on their pull
+requests, and upstream maintainers should verify the tags when pulling
+branches.  Failure to do so threatens the security of the development
+process as a whole.
+
+As per the rules outlined above, once you have merged somebody else's
+history into your tree, you cannot rebase that branch, even if you
+otherwise would be able to.
+
+Merging from sibling or upstream trees
+--------------------------------------
+
+While merges from downstream are common and unremarkable, merges from other
+trees tend to be a red flag when it comes time to push a branch upstream.
+Such merges need to be carefully thought about and well justified, or
+there's a good chance that a subsequent pull request will be rejected.
+
+It is natural to want to merge the master branch into a repository; this
+type of merge is often called a "back merge".  Back merges can help to make
+sure that there are no conflicts with parallel development and generally
+gives a warm, fuzzy feeling of being up-to-date.  But this temptation
+should be avoided almost all of the time.
+
+Why is that?  Back merges will muddy the development history of your own
+branch.  They will significantly increase your chances of encountering bugs
+from elsewhere in the community and make it hard to ensure that the work
+you are managing is stable and ready for upstream.  Frequent merges can
+also obscure problems with the development process in your tree; they can
+hide interactions with other trees that should not be happening (often) in
+a well-managed branch.
+
+That said, back merges are occasionally required; when that happens, be
+sure to document *why* it was required in the commit message.  As always,
+merge to a well-known stable point, rather than to some random commit.
+Even then, you should not back merge a tree above your immediate upstream
+tree; if a higher-level back merge is really required, the upstream tree
+should do it first.
+
+One of the most frequent causes of merge-related trouble is when a
+maintainer merges with the upstream in order to resolve merge conflicts
+before sending a pull request.  Again, this temptation is easy enough to
+understand, but it should absolutely be avoided.  This is especially true
+for the final pull request: Linus is adamant that he would much rather see
+merge conflicts than unnecessary back merges.  Seeing the conflicts lets
+him know where potential problem areas are.  He does a lot of merges (382
+in the 5.1 development cycle) and has gotten quite good at conflict
+resolution - often better than the developers involved.
+
+So what should a maintainer do when there is a conflict between their
+subsystem branch and the mainline?  The most important step is to warn
+Linus in the pull request that the conflict will happen; if nothing else,
+that demonstrates an awareness of how your branch fits into the whole.  For
+especially difficult conflicts, create and push a *separate* branch to show
+how you would resolve things.  Mention that branch in your pull request,
+but the pull request itself should be for the unmerged branch.
+
+Even in the absence of known conflicts, doing a test merge before sending a
+pull request is a good idea.  It may alert you to problems that you somehow
+didn't see from linux-next and helps to understand exactly what you are
+asking upstream to do.
+
+Another reason for doing merges of upstream or another subsystem tree is to
+resolve dependencies.  These dependency issues do happen at times, and
+sometimes a cross-merge with another tree is the best way to resolve them;
+as always, in such situations, the merge commit should explain why the
+merge has been done.  Take a moment to do it right; people will read those
+changelogs.
+
+Often, though, dependency issues indicate that a change of approach is
+needed.  Merging another subsystem tree to resolve a dependency risks
+bringing in other bugs and should almost never be done.  If that subsystem
+tree fails to be pulled upstream, whatever problems it had will block the
+merging of your tree as well.  Preferable alternatives include agreeing
+with the maintainer to carry both sets of changes in one of the trees or
+creating a topic branch dedicated to the prerequisite commits that can be
+merged into both trees.  If the dependency is related to major
+infrastructural changes, the right solution might be to hold the dependent
+commits for one development cycle so that those changes have time to
+stabilize in the mainline.
+
+Finally
+=======
+
+It is relatively common to merge with the mainline toward the beginning of
+the development cycle in order to pick up changes and fixes done elsewhere
+in the tree.  As always, such a merge should pick a well-known release
+point rather than some random spot.  If your upstream-bound branch has
+emptied entirely into the mainline during the merge window, you can pull it
+forward with a command like::
+
+  git merge --ff-only v5.2-rc1
+
+The guidelines laid out above are just that: guidelines.  There will always
+be situations that call out for a different solution, and these guidelines
+should not prevent developers from doing the right thing when the need
+arises.  But one should always think about whether the need has truly
+arisen and be prepared to explain why something abnormal needs to be done.