1.. _development_posting: 2 3Posting patches 4=============== 5 6Sooner or later, the time comes when your work is ready to be presented to 7the community for review and, eventually, inclusion into the mainline 8kernel. Unsurprisingly, the kernel development community has evolved a set 9of conventions and procedures which are used in the posting of patches; 10following them will make life much easier for everybody involved. This 11document will attempt to cover these expectations in reasonable detail; 12more information can also be found in the files 13:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` 14and :ref:`Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst <submitchecklist>`. 15 16 17When to post 18------------ 19 20There is a constant temptation to avoid posting patches before they are 21completely "ready." For simple patches, that is not a problem. If the 22work being done is complex, though, there is a lot to be gained by getting 23feedback from the community before the work is complete. So you should 24consider posting in-progress work, or even making a git tree available so 25that interested developers can catch up with your work at any time. 26 27When posting code which is not yet considered ready for inclusion, it is a 28good idea to say so in the posting itself. Also mention any major work 29which remains to be done and any known problems. Fewer people will look at 30patches which are known to be half-baked, but those who do will come in 31with the idea that they can help you drive the work in the right direction. 32 33 34Before creating patches 35----------------------- 36 37There are a number of things which should be done before you consider 38sending patches to the development community. These include: 39 40 - Test the code to the extent that you can. Make use of the kernel's 41 debugging tools, ensure that the kernel will build with all reasonable 42 combinations of configuration options, use cross-compilers to build for 43 different architectures, etc. 44 45 - Make sure your code is compliant with the kernel coding style 46 guidelines. 47 48 - Does your change have performance implications? If so, you should run 49 benchmarks showing what the impact (or benefit) of your change is; a 50 summary of the results should be included with the patch. 51 52 - Be sure that you have the right to post the code. If this work was done 53 for an employer, the employer likely has a right to the work and must be 54 agreeable with its release under the GPL. 55 56As a general rule, putting in some extra thought before posting code almost 57always pays back the effort in short order. 58 59 60Patch preparation 61----------------- 62 63The preparation of patches for posting can be a surprising amount of work, 64but, once again, attempting to save time here is not generally advisable 65even in the short term. 66 67Patches must be prepared against a specific version of the kernel. As a 68general rule, a patch should be based on the current mainline as found in 69Linus's git tree. When basing on mainline, start with a well-known release 70point - a stable or -rc release - rather than branching off the mainline at 71an arbitrary spot. 72 73It may become necessary to make versions against -mm, linux-next, or a 74subsystem tree, though, to facilitate wider testing and review. Depending 75on the area of your patch and what is going on elsewhere, basing a patch 76against these other trees can require a significant amount of work 77resolving conflicts and dealing with API changes. 78 79Only the most simple changes should be formatted as a single patch; 80everything else should be made as a logical series of changes. Splitting 81up patches is a bit of an art; some developers spend a long time figuring 82out how to do it in the way that the community expects. There are a few 83rules of thumb, however, which can help considerably: 84 85 - The patch series you post will almost certainly not be the series of 86 changes found in your working revision control system. Instead, the 87 changes you have made need to be considered in their final form, then 88 split apart in ways which make sense. The developers are interested in 89 discrete, self-contained changes, not the path you took to get to those 90 changes. 91 92 - Each logically independent change should be formatted as a separate 93 patch. These changes can be small ("add a field to this structure") or 94 large (adding a significant new driver, for example), but they should be 95 conceptually small and amenable to a one-line description. Each patch 96 should make a specific change which can be reviewed on its own and 97 verified to do what it says it does. 98 99 - As a way of restating the guideline above: do not mix different types of 100 changes in the same patch. If a single patch fixes a critical security 101 bug, rearranges a few structures, and reformats the code, there is a 102 good chance that it will be passed over and the important fix will be 103 lost. 104 105 - Each patch should yield a kernel which builds and runs properly; if your 106 patch series is interrupted in the middle, the result should still be a 107 working kernel. Partial application of a patch series is a common 108 scenario when the "git bisect" tool is used to find regressions; if the 109 result is a broken kernel, you will make life harder for developers and 110 users who are engaging in the noble work of tracking down problems. 111 112 - Do not overdo it, though. One developer once posted a set of edits 113 to a single file as 500 separate patches - an act which did not make him 114 the most popular person on the kernel mailing list. A single patch can 115 be reasonably large as long as it still contains a single *logical* 116 change. 117 118 - It can be tempting to add a whole new infrastructure with a series of 119 patches, but to leave that infrastructure unused until the final patch 120 in the series enables the whole thing. This temptation should be 121 avoided if possible; if that series adds regressions, bisection will 122 finger the last patch as the one which caused the problem, even though 123 the real bug is elsewhere. Whenever possible, a patch which adds new 124 code should make that code active immediately. 125 126Working to create the perfect patch series can be a frustrating process 127which takes quite a bit of time and thought after the "real work" has been 128done. When done properly, though, it is time well spent. 129 130 131Patch formatting and changelogs 132------------------------------- 133 134So now you have a perfect series of patches for posting, but the work is 135not done quite yet. Each patch needs to be formatted into a message which 136quickly and clearly communicates its purpose to the rest of the world. To 137that end, each patch will be composed of the following: 138 139 - An optional "From" line naming the author of the patch. This line is 140 only necessary if you are passing on somebody else's patch via email, 141 but it never hurts to add it when in doubt. 142 143 - A one-line description of what the patch does. This message should be 144 enough for a reader who sees it with no other context to figure out the 145 scope of the patch; it is the line that will show up in the "short form" 146 changelogs. This message is usually formatted with the relevant 147 subsystem name first, followed by the purpose of the patch. For 148 example: 149 150 :: 151 152 gpio: fix build on CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS=n 153 154 - A blank line followed by a detailed description of the contents of the 155 patch. This description can be as long as is required; it should say 156 what the patch does and why it should be applied to the kernel. 157 158 - One or more tag lines, with, at a minimum, one Signed-off-by: line from 159 the author of the patch. Tags will be described in more detail below. 160 161The items above, together, form the changelog for the patch. Writing good 162changelogs is a crucial but often-neglected art; it's worth spending 163another moment discussing this issue. When writing a changelog, you should 164bear in mind that a number of different people will be reading your words. 165These include subsystem maintainers and reviewers who need to decide 166whether the patch should be included, distributors and other maintainers 167trying to decide whether a patch should be backported to other kernels, bug 168hunters wondering whether the patch is responsible for a problem they are 169chasing, users who want to know how the kernel has changed, and more. A 170good changelog conveys the needed information to all of these people in the 171most direct and concise way possible. 172 173To that end, the summary line should describe the effects of and motivation 174for the change as well as possible given the one-line constraint. The 175detailed description can then amplify on those topics and provide any 176needed additional information. If the patch fixes a bug, cite the commit 177which introduced the bug if possible (and please provide both the commit ID 178and the title when citing commits). If a problem is associated with 179specific log or compiler output, include that output to help others 180searching for a solution to the same problem. If the change is meant to 181support other changes coming in later patch, say so. If internal APIs are 182changed, detail those changes and how other developers should respond. In 183general, the more you can put yourself into the shoes of everybody who will 184be reading your changelog, the better that changelog (and the kernel as a 185whole) will be. 186 187Needless to say, the changelog should be the text used when committing the 188change to a revision control system. It will be followed by: 189 190 - The patch itself, in the unified ("-u") patch format. Using the "-p" 191 option to diff will associate function names with changes, making the 192 resulting patch easier for others to read. 193 194The tags already briefly mentioned above are used to provide insights how 195the patch came into being. They are described in detail in the 196:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` 197document; what follows here is a brief summary. 198 199One tag is used to refer to earlier commits which introduced problems fixed by 200the patch:: 201 202 Fixes: 1f2e3d4c5b6a ("The first line of the commit specified by the first 12 characters of its SHA-1 ID") 203 204Another tag is used for linking web pages with additional backgrounds or 205details, for example an earlier discussion which leads to the patch or a 206document with a specification implemented by the patch:: 207 208 Link: https://example.com/somewhere.html optional-other-stuff 209 210Many maintainers when applying a patch also add this tag to link to the 211latest public review posting of the patch; often this is automatically done 212by tools like b4 or a git hook like the one described in 213'Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst'. 214 215If the URL points to a public bug report being fixed by the patch, use the 216"Closes:" tag instead:: 217 218 Closes: https://example.com/issues/1234 optional-other-stuff 219 220Some bug trackers have the ability to close issues automatically when a 221commit with such a tag is applied. Some bots monitoring mailing lists can 222also track such tags and take certain actions. Private bug trackers and 223invalid URLs are forbidden. 224 225Another kind of tag is used to document who was involved in the development of 226the patch. Each of these uses this format:: 227 228 tag: Full Name <email address> optional-other-stuff 229 230The tags in common use are: 231 232 - Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or she has 233 the right to submit the patch for inclusion into the kernel. It is an 234 agreement to the Developer's Certificate of Origin, the full text of 235 which can be found in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` 236 Code without a proper signoff cannot be merged into the mainline. 237 238 - Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by several developers; 239 it is a used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author 240 attributed by the From: tag) when multiple people work on a single patch. 241 Every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of 242 the associated co-author. Details and examples can be found in 243 :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`. 244 245 - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a 246 maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for 247 inclusion into the kernel. 248 249 - Tested-by: states that the named person has tested the patch and found 250 it to work. 251 252 - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness; 253 see the reviewer's statement in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` 254 for more detail. 255 256 - Reported-by: names a user who reported a problem which is fixed by this 257 patch; this tag is used to give credit to the (often underappreciated) 258 people who test our code and let us know when things do not work 259 correctly. Note, this tag should be followed by a Closes: tag pointing to 260 the report, unless the report is not available on the web. The Link: tag 261 can be used instead of Closes: if the patch fixes a part of the issue(s) 262 being reported. 263 264 - Cc: the named person received a copy of the patch and had the 265 opportunity to comment on it. 266 267Be careful in the addition of tags to your patches, as only Cc: is appropriate 268for addition without the explicit permission of the person named; using 269Reported-by: is fine most of the time as well, but ask for permission if 270the bug was reported in private. 271 272 273Sending the patch 274----------------- 275 276Before you mail your patches, there are a couple of other things you should 277take care of: 278 279 - Are you sure that your mailer will not corrupt the patches? Patches 280 which have had gratuitous white-space changes or line wrapping performed 281 by the mail client will not apply at the other end, and often will not 282 be examined in any detail. If there is any doubt at all, mail the patch 283 to yourself and convince yourself that it shows up intact. 284 285 :ref:`Documentation/process/email-clients.rst <email_clients>` has some 286 helpful hints on making specific mail clients work for sending patches. 287 288 - Are you sure your patch is free of silly mistakes? You should always 289 run patches through scripts/checkpatch.pl and address the complaints it 290 comes up with. Please bear in mind that checkpatch.pl, while being the 291 embodiment of a fair amount of thought about what kernel patches should 292 look like, is not smarter than you. If fixing a checkpatch.pl complaint 293 would make the code worse, don't do it. 294 295Patches should always be sent as plain text. Please do not send them as 296attachments; that makes it much harder for reviewers to quote sections of 297the patch in their replies. Instead, just put the patch directly into your 298message. 299 300When mailing patches, it is important to send copies to anybody who might 301be interested in it. Unlike some other projects, the kernel encourages 302people to err on the side of sending too many copies; don't assume that the 303relevant people will see your posting on the mailing lists. In particular, 304copies should go to: 305 306 - The maintainer(s) of the affected subsystem(s). As described earlier, 307 the MAINTAINERS file is the first place to look for these people. 308 309 - Other developers who have been working in the same area - especially 310 those who might be working there now. Using git to see who else has 311 modified the files you are working on can be helpful. 312 313 - If you are responding to a bug report or a feature request, copy the 314 original poster as well. 315 316 - Send a copy to the relevant mailing list, or, if nothing else applies, 317 the linux-kernel list. 318 319 - If you are fixing a bug, think about whether the fix should go into the 320 next stable update. If so, stable@vger.kernel.org should get a copy of 321 the patch. Also add a "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" to the tags within 322 the patch itself; that will cause the stable team to get a notification 323 when your fix goes into the mainline. 324 325When selecting recipients for a patch, it is good to have an idea of who 326you think will eventually accept the patch and get it merged. While it 327is possible to send patches directly to Linus Torvalds and have him merge 328them, things are not normally done that way. Linus is busy, and there are 329subsystem maintainers who watch over specific parts of the kernel. Usually 330you will be wanting that maintainer to merge your patches. If there is no 331obvious maintainer, Andrew Morton is often the patch target of last resort. 332 333Patches need good subject lines. The canonical format for a patch line is 334something like: 335 336:: 337 338 [PATCH nn/mm] subsys: one-line description of the patch 339 340where "nn" is the ordinal number of the patch, "mm" is the total number of 341patches in the series, and "subsys" is the name of the affected subsystem. 342Clearly, nn/mm can be omitted for a single, standalone patch. 343 344If you have a significant series of patches, it is customary to send an 345introductory description as part zero. This convention is not universally 346followed though; if you use it, remember that information in the 347introduction does not make it into the kernel changelogs. So please ensure 348that the patches, themselves, have complete changelog information. 349 350In general, the second and following parts of a multi-part patch should be 351sent as a reply to the first part so that they all thread together at the 352receiving end. Tools like git and quilt have commands to mail out a set of 353patches with the proper threading. If you have a long series, though, and 354are using git, please stay away from the --chain-reply-to option to avoid 355creating exceptionally deep nesting. 356