Lines Matching refs:patch
48 Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
77 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
81 Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
82 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
85 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
86 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
87 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
88 subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
89 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
90 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
92 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
95 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
116 can be found on the web, add 'Link:' tags pointing to it. In case your patch
118 mailing list archives or a bug tracker; if the patch is a result of some
135 patch as submitted.
137 If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
163 Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
171 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
172 is contained within a single patch.
174 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
175 change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
178 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
179 complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
180 in your patch description.
183 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
185 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
188 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
196 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
199 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
204 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
209 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
220 patch.
223 Select the recipients for your patch
226 You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
235 of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org should be used by default
238 subsystem-specific list; your patch will probably get more attention there.
253 If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
255 to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
256 obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. See also
264 into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You
269 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
292 Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
293 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
295 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
310 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
311 which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must
322 version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches
335 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
344 It's also ok to resend the patch or the patch series after a couple of
347 [PATCH Vx RESEND] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
350 patch or patch series - "RESEND" only applies to resubmission of a
351 patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the
375 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
376 pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
420 people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
421 development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
430 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
433 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
434 ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
437 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
440 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
445 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
446 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
452 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
453 provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
456 patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
459 Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
461 attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since
465 chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
467 Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
472 Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
482 Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
504 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
509 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
517 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
521 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
530 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
535 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
538 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
540 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
542 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
546 next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
549 in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
551 A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
558 A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
562 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
567 patch candidates. For more information, please read
572 The canonical patch format
575 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
576 that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch
577 formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create
580 The canonical patch subject line is::
584 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
586 - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty
587 line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author).
590 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
601 - The actual patch (``diff`` output).
612 describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary
614 phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch
618 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
620 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
622 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
628 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
629 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
635 not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
637 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
641 If there are four patches in a patch series the individual patches may
644 they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in the patch series.
650 Subject: [PATCH v2] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
651 Subject: [PATCH v2 M/N] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
659 patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing,
661 the patch author in the changelog.
666 this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the patch addresses
669 patch. The text should be written in such detail so that when read
671 details to grasp the reasoning for **why** the patch was created.
673 If a patch fixes a compile failure, it may not be necessary to include
675 someone searching for the patch can find it. As in the ``summary
679 patch handling tools where the changelog message ends.
692 example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs`` which describe
693 what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the patch.
696 the changelog from the rest of the patch. The version information is
701 patch::
713 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
743 It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
744 (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
746 the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
748 series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
751 the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
763 If you are using ``git format-patch`` to generate your patches, you can
774 $ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
775 outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
776 outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
779 When you open ``outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch`` for editing, you will
784 $ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
785 Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
790 Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this
800 letter or in the first patch of the series and it should be placed
808 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
811 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
812 <https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
827 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
832 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: