|
@@ -301,8 +301,68 @@ now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
|
|
|
point out some special detail about the sign-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+12) The canonical patch format
|
|
|
|
|
|
-12) More references for submitting patches
|
|
|
+The canonical patch subject line is:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [<area>:] <explanation>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+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.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+See further details on how to phrase the "<explanation>" in the
|
|
|
+"Subject:" line in Andrew Morton's "The perfect patch", referenced
|
|
|
+below.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+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>
|
|
@@ -310,6 +370,14 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
|
|
|
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>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------
|