Adding upstream version 6.1.76.upstream/6.1.76

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

1 files changed, 347 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d87f1fee4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,347 @@
+.. _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>`
+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 already briefly mentioned above are used to provide insights how
+the patch came into being. They are described in detail in the
+:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
+document; what follows here is a brief summary.
+
+One tag is used to refer to earlier commits which introduced problems fixed by
+the patch::
+
+	Fixes: 1f2e3d4c5b6a ("The first line of the commit specified by the first 12 characters of its SHA-1 ID")
+
+Another tag is used for linking web pages with additional backgrounds or
+details, for example a report about a bug fixed by the patch or a document
+with a specification implemented by the patch::
+
+	Link: https://example.com/somewhere.html  optional-other-stuff
+
+Many maintainers when applying a patch also add this tag to link to the
+latest public review posting of the patch; often this is automatically done
+by tools like b4 or a git hook like the one described in
+'Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst'.
+
+A third kind of tag is used to document who was involved in the development of
+the patch. Each of these uses this 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, as only Cc: is appropriate
+for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using
+Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well, but ask for permission if
+the bug was reported in private.
+
+
+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.