Lines Matching full:patch
43 Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
72 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
76 Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
77 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
80 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
81 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
82 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
83 subsystem maintainer to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
84 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
85 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
87 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
90 instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
94 If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
95 number and URL. If the patch follows from a mailing list discussion,
103 patch as submitted.
121 If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
147 Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
155 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
156 is contained within a single patch.
158 The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
159 change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be justifiable
162 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
163 complete, that is OK. Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
164 in your patch description.
167 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
169 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
172 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
180 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
184 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
189 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
194 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
205 patch.
208 Select the recipients for your patch
211 You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
219 of your patch set. linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org functions as a list of
222 list; your patch will probably get more attention there. Please do not
237 If you have a patch that fixes an exploitable security bug, send that patch
239 to allow distributors to get the patch out to users; in such cases,
240 obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists. See also
248 into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient). You
254 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
259 For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
274 - Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
296 Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
297 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
299 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
314 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
315 which the patch can be improved, in the form of a reply to your email. You must
335 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
345 Include PATCH in the subject
349 convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets Linus
365 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
366 pass it on as an open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
412 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
415 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
416 ask to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
419 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
422 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
427 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
428 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
434 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
435 provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
438 patch. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
441 Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
443 attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch. Since
447 chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
449 Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
454 Example of a patch submitted by the From: author::
464 Example of a patch submitted by a Co-developed-by: author::
485 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
490 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
498 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
502 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
511 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
516 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
519 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
521 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
523 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
527 next versions. However if the patch has changed substantially in following
530 in the patch changelog (after the '---' separator).
532 A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
539 A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
543 method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
548 The canonical patch format
551 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted. Note
552 that, if you have your patches stored in a ``git`` repository, proper patch
553 formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``. The tools cannot create
556 The canonical patch subject line is::
558 Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
560 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
562 - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author, followed by an empty
563 line (only needed if the person sending the patch is not the author).
566 be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
577 - The actual patch (``diff`` output).
588 describe the patch which that email contains. The ``summary
590 phrase`` for every patch in a whole patch series (where a ``patch
594 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
596 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
598 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
604 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
605 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
610 brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>". The tags are
611 not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
613 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
615 comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
619 the patch series.
623 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
624 Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking
629 From: Patch Author <author@example.com>
632 patch in the permanent changelog. If the ``from`` line is missing,
634 the patch author in the changelog.
639 have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the
640 patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
642 looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure,
644 enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
648 The ``---`` marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
656 here. A good example of such comments might be ``patch changelogs``
658 patch.
666 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
674 It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
675 (e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
677 the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
679 series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
682 the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
694 If you are using ``git format-patch`` to generate your patches, you can
705 $ git format-patch --base=auto --cover-letter -o outgoing/ master
706 outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch
707 outgoing/0001-First-Commit.patch
710 When you open ``outgoing/0000-cover-letter.patch`` for editing, you will
715 $ git checkout -b patch-review [base-commit-id]
716 Switched to a new branch 'patch-review'
721 Please see ``man git-format-patch`` for more information about this
731 letter or in the first patch of the series and it should be placed
739 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
742 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
743 <https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
758 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
764 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format: