MAINTAINERS file for a mailing list that relates specifically to
your change.
+If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send
+the MAN-PAGES maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file)
+a man-pages patch, or at least a notification of the change,
+so that some information makes its way into the manual pages.
+
Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #4, make sure to ALWAYS
copy the maintainer when you change their code.
point out some special detail about the sign-off.
+12) The canonical patch format
+
+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.
-12) More references for submitting patches
+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>
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>
-----------------------------------
projects / karo-tx-linux.git / blobdiff