linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
<<
>>
Prefs
   1
   2        How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
   3                or
   4        Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds
   5
   6
   7
   8For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux
   9kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar
  10with "the system."  This text is a collection of suggestions which
  11can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted.
  12
  13Read Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check
  14before submitting code.  If you are submitting a driver, also read
  15Documentation/SubmittingDrivers.
  16
  17
  18
  19--------------------------------------------
  20SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
  21--------------------------------------------
  22
  23
  24
  251) "diff -up"
  26------------
  27
  28Use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN" to create patches.
  29
  30All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
  31generated by diff(1).  When creating your patch, make sure to create it
  32in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1).
  33Also, please use the '-p' argument which shows which C function each
  34change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read.
  35Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory,
  36not in any lower subdirectory.
  37
  38To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
  39
  40        SRCTREE= linux-2.6
  41        MYFILE=  drivers/net/mydriver.c
  42
  43        cd $SRCTREE
  44        cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig
  45        vi $MYFILE      # make your change
  46        cd ..
  47        diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch
  48
  49To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
  50or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a diff against your
  51own source tree.  For example:
  52
  53        MYSRC= /devel/linux-2.6
  54
  55        tar xvfz linux-2.6.12.tar.gz
  56        mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-vanilla
  57        diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.12-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
  58                linux-2.6.12-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
  59
  60"dontdiff" is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
  61the build process, and should be ignored in any diff(1)-generated
  62patch.  The "dontdiff" file is included in the kernel tree in
  632.6.12 and later.  For earlier kernel versions, you can get it
  64from <http://www.xenotime.net/linux/doc/dontdiff>.
  65
  66Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
  67belong in a patch submission.  Make sure to review your patch -after-
  68generated it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy.
  69
  70If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you may want to look into
  71splitting them into individual patches which modify things in
  72logical stages.  This will facilitate easier reviewing by other
  73kernel developers, very important if you want your patch accepted.
  74There are a number of scripts which can aid in this:
  75
  76Quilt:
  77http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt
  78
  79Andrew Morton's patch scripts:
  80http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/patch-scripts.tar.gz
  81Instead of these scripts, quilt is the recommended patch management
  82tool (see above).
  83
  84
  85
  862) Describe your changes.
  87
  88Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
  89
  90Be as specific as possible.  The WORST descriptions possible include
  91things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
  92includes updates for subsystem X.  Please apply."
  93
  94If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
  95need to split up your patch.  See #3, next.
  96
  97
  98
  993) Separate your changes.
 100
 101Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file.
 102
 103For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
 104enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
 105or more patches.  If your changes include an API update, and a new
 106driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
 107
 108On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
 109group those changes into a single patch.  Thus a single logical change
 110is contained within a single patch.
 111
 112If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
 113complete, that is OK.  Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
 114in your patch description.
 115
 116If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
 117then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
 118
 119
 120
 1214) Style check your changes.
 122
 123Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
 124found in Documentation/CodingStyle.  Failure to do so simply wastes
 125the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
 126without even being read.
 127
 128At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style
 129checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl).  You should
 130be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch.
 131
 132
 133
 1345) Select e-mail destination.
 135
 136Look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code, and determine
 137if your change applies to a specific subsystem of the kernel, with
 138an assigned maintainer.  If so, e-mail that person.
 139
 140If no maintainer is listed, or the maintainer does not respond, send
 141your patch to the primary Linux kernel developer's mailing list,
 142linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.  Most kernel developers monitor this
 143e-mail list, and can comment on your changes.
 144
 145
 146Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
 147
 148
 149Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
 150Linux kernel.  His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>. 
 151He gets a lot of e-mail, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
 152sending him e-mail. 
 153
 154Patches which are bug fixes, are "obvious" changes, or similarly
 155require little discussion should be sent or CC'd to Linus.  Patches
 156which require discussion or do not have a clear advantage should
 157usually be sent first to linux-kernel.  Only after the patch is
 158discussed should the patch then be submitted to Linus.
 159
 160
 161
 1626) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list.
 163
 164Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.
 165
 166Other kernel developers besides Linus need to be aware of your change,
 167so that they may comment on it and offer code review and suggestions.
 168linux-kernel is the primary Linux kernel developer mailing list.
 169Other mailing lists are available for specific subsystems, such as
 170USB, framebuffer devices, the VFS, the SCSI subsystem, etc.  See the
 171MAINTAINERS file for a mailing list that relates specifically to
 172your change.
 173
 174Majordomo lists of VGER.KERNEL.ORG at:
 175        <http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html>
 176
 177If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send
 178the MAN-PAGES maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file)
 179a man-pages patch, or at least a notification of the change,
 180so that some information makes its way into the manual pages.
 181
 182Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #4, make sure to ALWAYS
 183copy the maintainer when you change their code.
 184
 185For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
 186trivial@kernel.org managed by Jesper Juhl; which collects "trivial"
 187patches. Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
 188 Spelling fixes in documentation
 189 Spelling fixes which could break grep(1)
 190 Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
 191 Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
 192 Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
 193 Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region)
 194 Contact detail and documentation fixes
 195 Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific,
 196 since people copy, as long as it's trivial)
 197 Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
 198 in re-transmission mode)
 199URL: <http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/juhl/trivial/>
 200
 201
 202
 2037) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
 204
 205Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
 206on the changes you are submitting.  It is important for a kernel
 207developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
 208tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
 209
 210For this reason, all patches should be submitting e-mail "inline".
 211WARNING:  Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
 212if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
 213
 214Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
 215Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
 216attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your
 217code.  A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
 218decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
 219
 220Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
 221you to re-send them using MIME.
 222
 223See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
 224your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
 225
 2268) E-mail size.
 227
 228When sending patches to Linus, always follow step #7.
 229
 230Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
 231maintainers.  If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 40 kB in size,
 232it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
 233server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.
 234
 235
 236
 2379) Name your kernel version.
 238
 239It is important to note, either in the subject line or in the patch
 240description, the kernel version to which this patch applies.
 241
 242If the patch does not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version,
 243Linus will not apply it.
 244
 245
 246
 24710) Don't get discouraged.  Re-submit.
 248
 249After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait.  If Linus
 250likes your change and applies it, it will appear in the next version
 251of the kernel that he releases.
 252
 253However, if your change doesn't appear in the next version of the
 254kernel, there could be any number of reasons.  It's YOUR job to
 255narrow down those reasons, correct what was wrong, and submit your
 256updated change.
 257
 258It is quite common for Linus to "drop" your patch without comment.
 259That's the nature of the system.  If he drops your patch, it could be
 260due to
 261* Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version.
 262* Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on linux-kernel.
 263* A style issue (see section 2).
 264* An e-mail formatting issue (re-read this section).
 265* A technical problem with your change.
 266* He gets tons of e-mail, and yours got lost in the shuffle.
 267* You are being annoying.
 268
 269When in doubt, solicit comments on linux-kernel mailing list.
 270
 271
 272
 27311) Include PATCH in the subject
 274
 275Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
 276convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH].  This lets Linus
 277and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other
 278e-mail discussions.
 279
 280
 281
 28212) Sign your work
 283
 284To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
 285percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
 286layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
 287patches that are being emailed around.
 288
 289The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
 290patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
 291pass it on as a open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
 292can certify the below:
 293
 294        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
 295
 296        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
 297
 298        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
 299            have the right to submit it under the open source license
 300            indicated in the file; or
 301
 302        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
 303            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
 304            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
 305            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
 306            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
 307            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
 308            in the file; or
 309
 310        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
 311            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
 312            it.
 313
 314        (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
 315            are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
 316            personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
 317            maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
 318            this project or the open source license(s) involved.
 319
 320then you just add a line saying
 321
 322        Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
 323
 324using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
 325
 326Some people also put extra tags at the end.  They'll just be ignored for
 327now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
 328point out some special detail about the sign-off. 
 329
 330If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
 331modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
 332exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
 333rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
 334counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
 335the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
 336make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
 337you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
 338the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
 339seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
 340enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
 341you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
 342
 343        Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
 344        [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
 345        Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
 346
 347This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
 348want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
 349and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
 350can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
 351which appears in the changelog.
 352
 353Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
 354to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
 355message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
 356here's what we see in 2.6-stable :
 357
 358    Date:   Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000
 359
 360        SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling
 361
 362        commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream
 363
 364And here's what appears in 2.4 :
 365
 366    Date:   Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
 367
 368        wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay
 369
 370        [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a]
 371
 372Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
 373tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your
 374tree.
 375
 376
 37713) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
 378
 379The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
 380development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
 381
 382If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
 383patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
 384arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
 385
 386Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
 387maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
 388
 389Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
 390has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
 391mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
 392into an Acked-by:.
 393
 394Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
 395For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
 396one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
 397the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgement should be used here.
 398When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
 399list archives.
 400
 401If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
 402provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
 403This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
 404person it names.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
 405have been included in the discussion
 406
 407
 40814) Using Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:
 409
 410A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
 411some environment) by the person named.  This tag informs maintainers that
 412some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
 413future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
 414
 415Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
 416acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
 417
 418        Reviewer's statement of oversight
 419
 420        By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
 421
 422         (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
 423             evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
 424             the mainline kernel.
 425
 426         (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
 427             have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
 428             with the submitter's response to my comments.
 429
 430         (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
 431             submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
 432             worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
 433             issues which would argue against its inclusion.
 434
 435         (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
 436             do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
 437             warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
 438             purpose or function properly in any given situation.
 439
 440A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
 441appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
 442technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
 443offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
 444reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
 445done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
 446understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
 447increase the liklihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
 448
 449
 45015) The canonical patch format
 451
 452The canonical patch subject line is:
 453
 454    Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
 455
 456The canonical patch message body contains the following:
 457
 458  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
 459
 460  - An empty line.
 461
 462  - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
 463    permanent changelog to describe this patch.
 464
 465  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
 466    also go in the changelog.
 467
 468  - A marker line containing simply "---".
 469
 470  - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.
 471
 472  - The actual patch (diff output).
 473
 474The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails
 475alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will
 476support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded,
 477the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same.
 478
 479The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which
 480area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched.
 481
 482The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely
 483describe the patch which that email contains.  The "summary
 484phrase" should not be a filename.  Do not use the same "summary
 485phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
 486series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
 487
 488Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes
 489a globally-unique identifier for that patch.  It propagates
 490all the way into the git changelog.  The "summary phrase" may
 491later be used in developer discussions which refer to the patch.
 492People will want to google for the "summary phrase" to read
 493discussion regarding that patch.
 494
 495A couple of example Subjects:
 496
 497    Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
 498    Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
 499
 500The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
 501and has the form:
 502
 503        From: Original Author <author@example.com>
 504
 505The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
 506patch in the permanent changelog.  If the "from" line is missing,
 507then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
 508the patch author in the changelog.
 509
 510The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
 511changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long
 512since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might
 513have led to this patch.
 514
 515The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
 516handling tools where the changelog message ends.
 517
 518One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for
 519a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of inserted
 520and deleted lines per file.  A diffstat is especially useful on bigger
 521patches.  Other comments relevant only to the moment or the maintainer,
 522not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go here.
 523Use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from the
 524top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal space
 525(easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
 526
 527See more details on the proper patch format in the following
 528references.
 529
 530
 53116) Sending "git pull" requests  (from Linus emails)
 532
 533Please write the git repo address and branch name alone on the same line
 534so that I can't even by mistake pull from the wrong branch, and so
 535that a triple-click just selects the whole thing.
 536
 537So the proper format is something along the lines of:
 538
 539        "Please pull from
 540
 541                git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
 542
 543         to get these changes:"
 544
 545so that I don't have to hunt-and-peck for the address and inevitably
 546get it wrong (actually, I've only gotten it wrong a few times, and
 547checking against the diffstat tells me when I get it wrong, but I'm
 548just a lot more comfortable when I don't have to "look for" the right
 549thing to pull, and double-check that I have the right branch-name).
 550
 551
 552Please use "git diff -M --stat --summary" to generate the diffstat:
 553the -M enables rename detection, and the summary enables a summary of
 554new/deleted or renamed files.
 555
 556With rename detection, the statistics are rather different [...]
 557because git will notice that a fair number of the changes are renames.
 558
 559-----------------------------------
 560SECTION 2 - HINTS, TIPS, AND TRICKS
 561-----------------------------------
 562
 563This section lists many of the common "rules" associated with code
 564submitted to the kernel.  There are always exceptions... but you must
 565have a really good reason for doing so.  You could probably call this
 566section Linus Computer Science 101.
 567
 568
 569
 5701) Read Documentation/CodingStyle
 571
 572Nuff said.  If your code deviates too much from this, it is likely
 573to be rejected without further review, and without comment.
 574
 575One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
 576another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in
 577the same patch which moves it.  This clearly delineates the act of
 578moving the code and your changes.  This greatly aids review of the
 579actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
 580the code itself.
 581
 582Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
 583(scripts/checkpatch.pl).  The style checker should be viewed as
 584a guide not as the final word.  If your code looks better with
 585a violation then its probably best left alone.
 586
 587The checker reports at three levels:
 588 - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
 589 - WARNING: things requiring careful review
 590 - CHECK: things requiring thought
 591
 592You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
 593patch.
 594
 595
 596
 5972) #ifdefs are ugly
 598
 599Code cluttered with ifdefs is difficult to read and maintain.  Don't do
 600it.  Instead, put your ifdefs in a header, and conditionally define
 601'static inline' functions, or macros, which are used in the code.
 602Let the compiler optimize away the "no-op" case.
 603
 604Simple example, of poor code:
 605
 606        dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
 607        if (!dev)
 608                return -ENODEV;
 609        #ifdef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
 610        init_funky_net(dev);
 611        #endif
 612
 613Cleaned-up example:
 614
 615(in header)
 616        #ifndef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
 617        static inline void init_funky_net (struct net_device *d) {}
 618        #endif
 619
 620(in the code itself)
 621        dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
 622        if (!dev)
 623                return -ENODEV;
 624        init_funky_net(dev);
 625
 626
 627
 6283) 'static inline' is better than a macro
 629
 630Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
 631They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
 632limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
 633
 634Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
 635suboptimal [there are a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
 636or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
 637string-izing].
 638
 639'static inline' is preferred over 'static __inline__', 'extern inline',
 640and 'extern __inline__'.
 641
 642
 643
 6444) Don't over-design.
 645
 646Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not
 647be useful:  "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler."
 648
 649
 650
 651----------------------
 652SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
 653----------------------
 654
 655Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
 656  <http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
 657
 658Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
 659  <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
 660
 661Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
 662  <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
 663  <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/07/08/>
 664  <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/10/19/>
 665  <http://www.kroah.com/log/2006/01/11/>
 666
 667NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
 668  <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112112749912944&w=2>
 669
 670Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle:
 671  <http://users.sosdg.org/~qiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle>
 672
 673Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format:
 674  <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
 675
 676Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
 677  Some strategies to get difficult or controversal changes in.
 678  http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf
 679
 680--
 681
lxr.linux.no kindly hosted by Redpill Linpro AS, provider of Linux consulting and operations services since 1995.