Lines Matching refs:patch
53 generated by :manpage:`diff(1)`. When creating your patch, make sure to
61 To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do::
70 diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch
72 To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
81 linux-3.19-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
85 patch.
87 Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
88 belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after-
94 very important if you want your patch accepted.
105 Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
134 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
138 Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
139 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
142 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
143 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
144 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
145 subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
146 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
147 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
149 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
152 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
156 If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
157 number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion,
165 patch as submitted.
183 If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
204 Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
212 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
213 is contained within a single patch.
215 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
216 change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
219 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
220 complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
221 in your patch description.
224 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
226 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
229 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
237 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
241 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
246 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
251 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
262 patch.
265 5) Select the recipients for your patch
268 You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
276 of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org functions as a list of
279 list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not
294 If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
296 to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
297 obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
304 into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You
315 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
335 - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
352 Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
353 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
355 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
372 maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
373 it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
374 server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch. But note
375 that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up
381 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
382 which the patch can be improved. You must respond to those comments;
398 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
427 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
428 pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
492 to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
502 And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported::
519 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
522 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
523 ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
526 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
529 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
534 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
535 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
541 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
542 provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
545 patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
548 Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
550 attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since
554 chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
556 Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
561 Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
571 Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
592 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
597 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
605 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
609 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
618 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
623 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
626 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
628 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
630 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
632 A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
639 A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
643 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
648 14) The canonical patch format
651 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
652 that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch
653 formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create
656 The canonical patch subject line is::
660 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
662 - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty
663 line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author).
666 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
677 - The actual patch (``diff`` output).
688 describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary
690 phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch
694 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
696 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
698 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
704 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
705 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
711 not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
713 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
715 comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
719 the patch series.
732 patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing,
734 the patch author in the changelog.
739 have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the
740 patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
742 looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure,
744 enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
748 The ``---`` marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
756 here. A good example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs``
758 patch.
766 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
774 It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
775 (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
777 the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
779 series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
782 the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
794 the pull request as the cover letter for a normal posting of the patch
809 themselves, and a ``diffstat`` showing the overall effect of the patch series.
823 Once you have prepared a patch series in ``git`` that you wish to have somebody
843 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
846 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
847 <https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
862 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
868 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: