Lines Matching refs:patch
49 Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
78 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
82 Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
83 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
86 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
87 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
88 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
89 subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
90 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
91 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
93 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
96 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
117 can be found on the web, add 'Link:' tags pointing to it. In case your patch
119 mailing list archives or a bug tracker; if the patch is a result of some
136 patch as submitted.
138 If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
164 Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
172 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
173 is contained within a single patch.
175 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
176 change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
179 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
180 complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
181 in your patch description.
184 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
186 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
189 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
197 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
200 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
205 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
210 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
221 patch.
224 Select the recipients for your patch
227 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
289 - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
311 Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
312 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
314 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
329 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
330 which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must
351 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
360 It's also ok to resend the patch or the patch series after a couple of
363 [PATCH Vx RESEND] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
366 patch or patch series - "RESEND" only applies to resubmission of a
367 patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the
391 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
392 pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
436 people handling and transporting the patch, but were not involved in its
437 development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
446 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
449 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
450 ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
453 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
456 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
461 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
462 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
468 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
469 provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
472 patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
475 Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
477 attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since
481 chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
483 Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
488 Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
498 Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
519 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
524 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
532 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
536 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
545 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
550 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
553 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
555 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
557 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
561 next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
564 in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
566 A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
573 A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
577 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
582 patch candidates. For more information, please read
587 The canonical patch format
590 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
591 that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch
592 formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create
595 The canonical patch subject line is::
599 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
601 - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty
602 line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author).
605 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
616 - The actual patch (``diff`` output).
627 describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary
629 phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch
633 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
635 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
637 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
643 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
644 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
650 not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
652 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
656 If there are four patches in a patch series the individual patches may
659 they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in the patch series.
665 Subject: [PATCH v2] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
666 Subject: [PATCH v2 M/N] sub/sys: Condensed patch summary
674 patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing,
676 the patch author in the changelog.
681 this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the patch addresses
684 patch. The text should be written in such detail so that when read
686 details to grasp the reasoning for **why** the patch was created.
688 If a patch fixes a compile failure, it may not be necessary to include
690 someone searching for the patch can find it. As in the ``summary
694 patch handling tools where the changelog message ends.
707 example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs`` which describe
708 what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the patch.
711 the changelog from the rest of the patch. The version information is
716 patch::
728 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
758 It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
759 (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
761 the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
763 series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
766 the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
778 If you are using ``git format-patch`` to generate your patches, you can
789 $ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
790 outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
791 outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
794 When you open ``outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch`` for editing, you will
799 $ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
800 Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
805 Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this
815 letter or in the first patch of the series and it should be placed
823 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
826 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
827 <https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
842 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
847 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: