diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/SubmittingPatches')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 86 |
1 files changed, 85 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 7f43b04..237d54c 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -301,8 +301,84 @@ now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just point out some special detail about the sign-off. +12) The canonical patch format -12) More references for submitting patches +The canonical patch subject line is: + + Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase + +The canonical patch message body contains the following: + + - A "from" line specifying the patch author. + + - An empty line. + + - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the + permanent changelog to describe this patch. + + - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will + also go in the changelog. + + - A marker line containing simply "---". + + - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog. + + - The actual patch (diff output). + +The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails +alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will +support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded, +the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same. + +The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which +area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched. + +The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely +describe the patch which that email contains. The "summary +phrase" should not be a filename. Do not use the same "summary +phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series. + +Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes +a globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates +all the way into the git changelog. The "summary phrase" may +later be used in developer discussions which refer to the patch. +People will want to google for the "summary phrase" to read +discussion regarding that patch. + +A couple of example Subjects: + + Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching + Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking + +The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body, +and has the form: + + From: Original Author <author@example.com> + +The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the +patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing, +then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine +the patch author in the changelog. + +The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source +changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long +since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might +have led to this patch. + +The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch +handling tools where the changelog message ends. + +One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for +a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of inserted +and deleted lines per file. A diffstat is especially useful on bigger +patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the maintainer, +not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go here. + +See more details on the proper patch format in the following +references. + + +13) More references for submitting patches Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). <http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt> @@ -310,6 +386,14 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp). Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format." <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> +Greg KH, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer" + <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/> + +Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle + <http://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle> + +Linus Torvald's mail on the canonical patch format: + <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183> ----------------------------------- |
