Lines Matching refs:patch
44 Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
73 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
77 Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
78 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
81 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
82 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
83 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
84 subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
85 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
86 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
88 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
91 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
95 If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
96 number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion,
104 patch as submitted.
122 If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
148 Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
156 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
157 is contained within a single patch.
159 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
160 change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
163 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
164 complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
165 in your patch description.
168 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
170 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
173 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
181 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
184 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
189 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
194 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
205 patch.
208 Select the recipients for your patch
211 You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
219 of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be used by default
222 subsystem-specific list; your patch will probably get more attention there.
237 If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
239 to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
240 obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. See also
248 into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You
253 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
273 - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
295 Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
296 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
298 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
313 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
314 which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must
334 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
343 It's also ok to resend the patch or the patch series after a couple of
346 [PATCH Vx RESEND] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
349 patch or patch series - "RESEND" only applies to resubmission of a
350 patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the
374 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
375 pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
419 people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
420 development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
429 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
432 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
433 ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
436 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
439 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
444 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
445 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
451 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
452 provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
455 patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
458 Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
460 attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since
464 chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
466 Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
471 Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
481 Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
502 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
507 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
515 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
519 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
528 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
533 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
536 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
538 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
540 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
544 next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
547 in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
549 A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
556 A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
560 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
565 patch candidates. For more information, please read
570 The canonical patch format
573 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
574 that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch
575 formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create
578 The canonical patch subject line is::
582 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
584 - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty
585 line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author).
588 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
599 - The actual patch (``diff`` output).
610 describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary
612 phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch
616 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
618 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
620 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
626 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
627 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
633 not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
635 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
639 If there are four patches in a patch series the individual patches may
642 they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in the patch series.
648 Subject: [PATCH v2] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
649 Subject: [PATCH v2 M/N] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
657 patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing,
659 the patch author in the changelog.
664 this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the patch addresses
667 patch. The text should be written in such detail so that when read
669 details to grasp the reasoning for **why** the patch was created.
671 If a patch fixes a compile failure, it may not be necessary to include
673 someone searching for the patch can find it. As in the ``summary
677 patch handling tools where the changelog message ends.
690 example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs`` which describe
691 what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the patch.
694 the changelog from the rest of the patch. The version information is
699 patch::
711 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
739 It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
740 (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
742 the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
744 series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
747 the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
759 If you are using ``git format-patch`` to generate your patches, you can
770 $ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
771 outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
772 outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
775 When you open ``outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch`` for editing, you will
780 $ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
781 Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
786 Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this
796 letter or in the first patch of the series and it should be placed
804 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
807 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
808 <https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
823 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
828 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: