|  | .. _process_howto: | 
|  |  | 
|  | HOWTO do Linux kernel development | 
|  | ================================= | 
|  |  | 
|  | This is the be-all, end-all document on this topic.  It contains | 
|  | instructions on how to become a Linux kernel developer and how to learn | 
|  | to work with the Linux kernel development community.  It tries to not | 
|  | contain anything related to the technical aspects of kernel programming, | 
|  | but will help point you in the right direction for that. | 
|  |  | 
|  | If anything in this document becomes out of date, please send in patches | 
|  | to the maintainer of this file, who is listed at the bottom of the | 
|  | document. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Introduction | 
|  | ------------ | 
|  |  | 
|  | So, you want to learn how to become a Linux kernel developer?  Or you | 
|  | have been told by your manager, "Go write a Linux driver for this | 
|  | device."  This document's goal is to teach you everything you need to | 
|  | know to achieve this by describing the process you need to go through, | 
|  | and hints on how to work with the community.  It will also try to | 
|  | explain some of the reasons why the community works like it does. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The kernel is written mostly in C, with some architecture-dependent | 
|  | parts written in assembly. A good understanding of C is required for | 
|  | kernel development.  Assembly (any architecture) is not required unless | 
|  | you plan to do low-level development for that architecture.  Though they | 
|  | are not a good substitute for a solid C education and/or years of | 
|  | experience, the following books are good for, if anything, reference: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie [Prentice Hall] | 
|  | - "Practical C Programming" by Steve Oualline [O'Reilly] | 
|  | - "C:  A Reference Manual" by Harbison and Steele [Prentice Hall] | 
|  |  | 
|  | The kernel is written using GNU C and the GNU toolchain.  While it | 
|  | adheres to the ISO C89 standard, it uses a number of extensions that are | 
|  | not featured in the standard.  The kernel is a freestanding C | 
|  | environment, with no reliance on the standard C library, so some | 
|  | portions of the C standard are not supported.  Arbitrary long long | 
|  | divisions and floating point are not allowed.  It can sometimes be | 
|  | difficult to understand the assumptions the kernel has on the toolchain | 
|  | and the extensions that it uses, and unfortunately there is no | 
|  | definitive reference for them.  Please check the gcc info pages (`info | 
|  | gcc`) for some information on them. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Please remember that you are trying to learn how to work with the | 
|  | existing development community.  It is a diverse group of people, with | 
|  | high standards for coding, style and procedure.  These standards have | 
|  | been created over time based on what they have found to work best for | 
|  | such a large and geographically dispersed team.  Try to learn as much as | 
|  | possible about these standards ahead of time, as they are well | 
|  | documented; do not expect people to adapt to you or your company's way | 
|  | of doing things. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Legal Issues | 
|  | ------------ | 
|  |  | 
|  | The Linux kernel source code is released under the GPL.  Please see the file | 
|  | COPYING in the main directory of the source tree. The Linux kernel licensing | 
|  | rules and how to use `SPDX <https://spdx.org/>`_ identifiers in source code are | 
|  | described in :ref:`Documentation/process/license-rules.rst <kernel_licensing>`. | 
|  | If you have further questions about the license, please contact a lawyer, and do | 
|  | not ask on the Linux kernel mailing list.  The people on the mailing lists are | 
|  | not lawyers, and you should not rely on their statements on legal matters. | 
|  |  | 
|  | For common questions and answers about the GPL, please see: | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Documentation | 
|  | ------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | The Linux kernel source tree has a large range of documents that are | 
|  | invaluable for learning how to interact with the kernel community.  When | 
|  | new features are added to the kernel, it is recommended that new | 
|  | documentation files are also added which explain how to use the feature. | 
|  | When a kernel change causes the interface that the kernel exposes to | 
|  | userspace to change, it is recommended that you send the information or | 
|  | a patch to the manual pages explaining the change to the manual pages | 
|  | maintainer at mtk.manpages@gmail.com, and CC the list | 
|  | linux-api@vger.kernel.org. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Here is a list of files that are in the kernel source tree that are | 
|  | required reading: | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/README.rst <readme>` | 
|  | This file gives a short background on the Linux kernel and describes | 
|  | what is necessary to do to configure and build the kernel.  People | 
|  | who are new to the kernel should start here. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/changes.rst <changes>` | 
|  | This file gives a list of the minimum levels of various software | 
|  | packages that are necessary to build and run the kernel | 
|  | successfully. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/coding-style.rst <codingstyle>` | 
|  | This describes the Linux kernel coding style, and some of the | 
|  | rationale behind it. All new code is expected to follow the | 
|  | guidelines in this document. Most maintainers will only accept | 
|  | patches if these rules are followed, and many people will only | 
|  | review code if it is in the proper style. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` and :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst <submittingdrivers>` | 
|  | These files describe in explicit detail how to successfully create | 
|  | and send a patch, including (but not limited to): | 
|  |  | 
|  | - Email contents | 
|  | - Email format | 
|  | - Who to send it to | 
|  |  | 
|  | Following these rules will not guarantee success (as all patches are | 
|  | subject to scrutiny for content and style), but not following them | 
|  | will almost always prevent it. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Other excellent descriptions of how to create patches properly are: | 
|  |  | 
|  | "The Perfect Patch" | 
|  | https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt | 
|  |  | 
|  | "Linux kernel patch submission format" | 
|  | https://web.archive.org/web/20180829112450/http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst <stable_api_nonsense>` | 
|  | This file describes the rationale behind the conscious decision to | 
|  | not have a stable API within the kernel, including things like: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - Subsystem shim-layers (for compatibility?) | 
|  | - Driver portability between Operating Systems. | 
|  | - Mitigating rapid change within the kernel source tree (or | 
|  | preventing rapid change) | 
|  |  | 
|  | This document is crucial for understanding the Linux development | 
|  | philosophy and is very important for people moving to Linux from | 
|  | development on other Operating Systems. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>` | 
|  | If you feel you have found a security problem in the Linux kernel, | 
|  | please follow the steps in this document to help notify the kernel | 
|  | developers, and help solve the issue. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/management-style.rst <managementstyle>` | 
|  | This document describes how Linux kernel maintainers operate and the | 
|  | shared ethos behind their methodologies.  This is important reading | 
|  | for anyone new to kernel development (or anyone simply curious about | 
|  | it), as it resolves a lot of common misconceptions and confusion | 
|  | about the unique behavior of kernel maintainers. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` | 
|  | This file describes the rules on how the stable kernel releases | 
|  | happen, and what to do if you want to get a change into one of these | 
|  | releases. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/kernel-docs.rst <kernel_docs>` | 
|  | A list of external documentation that pertains to kernel | 
|  | development.  Please consult this list if you do not find what you | 
|  | are looking for within the in-kernel documentation. | 
|  |  | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/process/applying-patches.rst <applying_patches>` | 
|  | A good introduction describing exactly what a patch is and how to | 
|  | apply it to the different development branches of the kernel. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The kernel also has a large number of documents that can be | 
|  | automatically generated from the source code itself or from | 
|  | ReStructuredText markups (ReST), like this one. This includes a | 
|  | full description of the in-kernel API, and rules on how to handle | 
|  | locking properly. | 
|  |  | 
|  | All such documents can be generated as PDF or HTML by running:: | 
|  |  | 
|  | make pdfdocs | 
|  | make htmldocs | 
|  |  | 
|  | respectively from the main kernel source directory. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The documents that uses ReST markup will be generated at Documentation/output. | 
|  | They can also be generated on LaTeX and ePub formats with:: | 
|  |  | 
|  | make latexdocs | 
|  | make epubdocs | 
|  |  | 
|  | Becoming A Kernel Developer | 
|  | --------------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | If you do not know anything about Linux kernel development, you should | 
|  | look at the Linux KernelNewbies project: | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://kernelnewbies.org | 
|  |  | 
|  | It consists of a helpful mailing list where you can ask almost any type | 
|  | of basic kernel development question (make sure to search the archives | 
|  | first, before asking something that has already been answered in the | 
|  | past.)  It also has an IRC channel that you can use to ask questions in | 
|  | real-time, and a lot of helpful documentation that is useful for | 
|  | learning about Linux kernel development. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The website has basic information about code organization, subsystems, | 
|  | and current projects (both in-tree and out-of-tree). It also describes | 
|  | some basic logistical information, like how to compile a kernel and | 
|  | apply a patch. | 
|  |  | 
|  | If you do not know where you want to start, but you want to look for | 
|  | some task to start doing to join into the kernel development community, | 
|  | go to the Linux Kernel Janitor's project: | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelJanitors | 
|  |  | 
|  | It is a great place to start.  It describes a list of relatively simple | 
|  | problems that need to be cleaned up and fixed within the Linux kernel | 
|  | source tree.  Working with the developers in charge of this project, you | 
|  | will learn the basics of getting your patch into the Linux kernel tree, | 
|  | and possibly be pointed in the direction of what to go work on next, if | 
|  | you do not already have an idea. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Before making any actual modifications to the Linux kernel code, it is | 
|  | imperative to understand how the code in question works.  For this | 
|  | purpose, nothing is better than reading through it directly (most tricky | 
|  | bits are commented well), perhaps even with the help of specialized | 
|  | tools.  One such tool that is particularly recommended is the Linux | 
|  | Cross-Reference project, which is able to present source code in a | 
|  | self-referential, indexed webpage format. An excellent up-to-date | 
|  | repository of the kernel code may be found at: | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://elixir.bootlin.com/ | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | The development process | 
|  | ----------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | Linux kernel development process currently consists of a few different | 
|  | main kernel "branches" and lots of different subsystem-specific kernel | 
|  | branches.  These different branches are: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - Linus's mainline tree | 
|  | - Various stable trees with multiple major numbers | 
|  | - Subsystem-specific trees | 
|  | - linux-next integration testing tree | 
|  |  | 
|  | Mainline tree | 
|  | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | 
|  |  | 
|  | The mainline tree is maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found at | 
|  | https://kernel.org or in the repo.  Its development process is as follows: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - As soon as a new kernel is released a two week window is open, | 
|  | during this period of time maintainers can submit big diffs to | 
|  | Linus, usually the patches that have already been included in the | 
|  | linux-next for a few weeks.  The preferred way to submit big changes | 
|  | is using git (the kernel's source management tool, more information | 
|  | can be found at https://git-scm.com/) but plain patches are also just | 
|  | fine. | 
|  | - After two weeks a -rc1 kernel is released and the focus is on making the | 
|  | new kernel as rock solid as possible.  Most of the patches at this point | 
|  | should fix a regression.  Bugs that have always existed are not | 
|  | regressions, so only push these kinds of fixes if they are important. | 
|  | Please note that a whole new driver (or filesystem) might be accepted | 
|  | after -rc1 because there is no risk of causing regressions with such a | 
|  | change as long as the change is self-contained and does not affect areas | 
|  | outside of the code that is being added.  git can be used to send | 
|  | patches to Linus after -rc1 is released, but the patches need to also be | 
|  | sent to a public mailing list for review. | 
|  | - A new -rc is released whenever Linus deems the current git tree to | 
|  | be in a reasonably sane state adequate for testing.  The goal is to | 
|  | release a new -rc kernel every week. | 
|  | - Process continues until the kernel is considered "ready", the | 
|  | process should last around 6 weeks. | 
|  |  | 
|  | It is worth mentioning what Andrew Morton wrote on the linux-kernel | 
|  | mailing list about kernel releases: | 
|  |  | 
|  | *"Nobody knows when a kernel will be released, because it's | 
|  | released according to perceived bug status, not according to a | 
|  | preconceived timeline."* | 
|  |  | 
|  | Various stable trees with multiple major numbers | 
|  | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | 
|  |  | 
|  | Kernels with 3-part versions are -stable kernels. They contain | 
|  | relatively small and critical fixes for security problems or significant | 
|  | regressions discovered in a given major mainline release. Each release | 
|  | in a major stable series increments the third part of the version | 
|  | number, keeping the first two parts the same. | 
|  |  | 
|  | This is the recommended branch for users who want the most recent stable | 
|  | kernel and are not interested in helping test development/experimental | 
|  | versions. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Stable trees are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@vger.kernel.org>, and | 
|  | are released as needs dictate.  The normal release period is approximately | 
|  | two weeks, but it can be longer if there are no pressing problems.  A | 
|  | security-related problem, instead, can cause a release to happen almost | 
|  | instantly. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The file :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` | 
|  | in the kernel tree documents what kinds of changes are acceptable for | 
|  | the -stable tree, and how the release process works. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Subsystem-specific trees | 
|  | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | 
|  |  | 
|  | The maintainers of the various kernel subsystems --- and also many | 
|  | kernel subsystem developers --- expose their current state of | 
|  | development in source repositories.  That way, others can see what is | 
|  | happening in the different areas of the kernel.  In areas where | 
|  | development is rapid, a developer may be asked to base his submissions | 
|  | onto such a subsystem kernel tree so that conflicts between the | 
|  | submission and other already ongoing work are avoided. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Most of these repositories are git trees, but there are also other SCMs | 
|  | in use, or patch queues being published as quilt series.  Addresses of | 
|  | these subsystem repositories are listed in the MAINTAINERS file.  Many | 
|  | of them can be browsed at https://git.kernel.org/. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Before a proposed patch is committed to such a subsystem tree, it is | 
|  | subject to review which primarily happens on mailing lists (see the | 
|  | respective section below).  For several kernel subsystems, this review | 
|  | process is tracked with the tool patchwork.  Patchwork offers a web | 
|  | interface which shows patch postings, any comments on a patch or | 
|  | revisions to it, and maintainers can mark patches as under review, | 
|  | accepted, or rejected.  Most of these patchwork sites are listed at | 
|  | https://patchwork.kernel.org/. | 
|  |  | 
|  | linux-next integration testing tree | 
|  | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | 
|  |  | 
|  | Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline tree, | 
|  | they need to be integration-tested.  For this purpose, a special | 
|  | testing repository exists into which virtually all subsystem trees are | 
|  | pulled on an almost daily basis: | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git | 
|  |  | 
|  | This way, the linux-next gives a summary outlook onto what will be | 
|  | expected to go into the mainline kernel at the next merge period. | 
|  | Adventurous testers are very welcome to runtime-test the linux-next. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Bug Reporting | 
|  | ------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://bugzilla.kernel.org is where the Linux kernel developers track kernel | 
|  | bugs.  Users are encouraged to report all bugs that they find in this | 
|  | tool.  For details on how to use the kernel bugzilla, please see: | 
|  |  | 
|  | https://bugzilla.kernel.org/page.cgi?id=faq.html | 
|  |  | 
|  | The file :ref:`admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst <reportingbugs>` | 
|  | in the main kernel source directory has a good | 
|  | template for how to report a possible kernel bug, and details what kind | 
|  | of information is needed by the kernel developers to help track down the | 
|  | problem. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Managing bug reports | 
|  | -------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | One of the best ways to put into practice your hacking skills is by fixing | 
|  | bugs reported by other people. Not only you will help to make the kernel | 
|  | more stable, but you'll also learn to fix real world problems and you will | 
|  | improve your skills, and other developers will be aware of your presence. | 
|  | Fixing bugs is one of the best ways to get merits among other developers, | 
|  | because not many people like wasting time fixing other people's bugs. | 
|  |  | 
|  | To work in the already reported bug reports, go to https://bugzilla.kernel.org. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Mailing lists | 
|  | ------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | As some of the above documents describe, the majority of the core kernel | 
|  | developers participate on the Linux Kernel Mailing list.  Details on how | 
|  | to subscribe and unsubscribe from the list can be found at: | 
|  |  | 
|  | http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-kernel | 
|  |  | 
|  | There are archives of the mailing list on the web in many different | 
|  | places.  Use a search engine to find these archives.  For example: | 
|  |  | 
|  | http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel | 
|  |  | 
|  | It is highly recommended that you search the archives about the topic | 
|  | you want to bring up, before you post it to the list. A lot of things | 
|  | already discussed in detail are only recorded at the mailing list | 
|  | archives. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Most of the individual kernel subsystems also have their own separate | 
|  | mailing list where they do their development efforts.  See the | 
|  | MAINTAINERS file for a list of what these lists are for the different | 
|  | groups. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Many of the lists are hosted on kernel.org. Information on them can be | 
|  | found at: | 
|  |  | 
|  | http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html | 
|  |  | 
|  | Please remember to follow good behavioral habits when using the lists. | 
|  | Though a bit cheesy, the following URL has some simple guidelines for | 
|  | interacting with the list (or any list): | 
|  |  | 
|  | http://www.albion.com/netiquette/ | 
|  |  | 
|  | If multiple people respond to your mail, the CC: list of recipients may | 
|  | get pretty large. Don't remove anybody from the CC: list without a good | 
|  | reason, or don't reply only to the list address. Get used to receiving the | 
|  | mail twice, one from the sender and the one from the list, and don't try | 
|  | to tune that by adding fancy mail-headers, people will not like it. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Remember to keep the context and the attribution of your replies intact, | 
|  | keep the "John Kernelhacker wrote ...:" lines at the top of your reply, and | 
|  | add your statements between the individual quoted sections instead of | 
|  | writing at the top of the mail. | 
|  |  | 
|  | If you add patches to your mail, make sure they are plain readable text | 
|  | as stated in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`. | 
|  | Kernel developers don't want to deal with | 
|  | attachments or compressed patches; they may want to comment on | 
|  | individual lines of your patch, which works only that way. Make sure you | 
|  | use a mail program that does not mangle spaces and tab characters. A | 
|  | good first test is to send the mail to yourself and try to apply your | 
|  | own patch by yourself. If that doesn't work, get your mail program fixed | 
|  | or change it until it works. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Above all, please remember to show respect to other subscribers. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Working with the community | 
|  | -------------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | The goal of the kernel community is to provide the best possible kernel | 
|  | there is.  When you submit a patch for acceptance, it will be reviewed | 
|  | on its technical merits and those alone.  So, what should you be | 
|  | expecting? | 
|  |  | 
|  | - criticism | 
|  | - comments | 
|  | - requests for change | 
|  | - requests for justification | 
|  | - silence | 
|  |  | 
|  | Remember, this is part of getting your patch into the kernel.  You have | 
|  | to be able to take criticism and comments about your patches, evaluate | 
|  | them at a technical level and either rework your patches or provide | 
|  | clear and concise reasoning as to why those changes should not be made. | 
|  | If there are no responses to your posting, wait a few days and try | 
|  | again, sometimes things get lost in the huge volume. | 
|  |  | 
|  | What should you not do? | 
|  |  | 
|  | - expect your patch to be accepted without question | 
|  | - become defensive | 
|  | - ignore comments | 
|  | - resubmit the patch without making any of the requested changes | 
|  |  | 
|  | In a community that is looking for the best technical solution possible, | 
|  | there will always be differing opinions on how beneficial a patch is. | 
|  | You have to be cooperative, and willing to adapt your idea to fit within | 
|  | the kernel.  Or at least be willing to prove your idea is worth it. | 
|  | Remember, being wrong is acceptable as long as you are willing to work | 
|  | toward a solution that is right. | 
|  |  | 
|  | It is normal that the answers to your first patch might simply be a list | 
|  | of a dozen things you should correct.  This does **not** imply that your | 
|  | patch will not be accepted, and it is **not** meant against you | 
|  | personally.  Simply correct all issues raised against your patch and | 
|  | resend it. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Differences between the kernel community and corporate structures | 
|  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | The kernel community works differently than most traditional corporate | 
|  | development environments.  Here are a list of things that you can try to | 
|  | do to avoid problems: | 
|  |  | 
|  | Good things to say regarding your proposed changes: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - "This solves multiple problems." | 
|  | - "This deletes 2000 lines of code." | 
|  | - "Here is a patch that explains what I am trying to describe." | 
|  | - "I tested it on 5 different architectures..." | 
|  | - "Here is a series of small patches that..." | 
|  | - "This increases performance on typical machines..." | 
|  |  | 
|  | Bad things you should avoid saying: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - "We did it this way in AIX/ptx/Solaris, so therefore it must be | 
|  | good..." | 
|  | - "I've being doing this for 20 years, so..." | 
|  | - "This is required for my company to make money" | 
|  | - "This is for our Enterprise product line." | 
|  | - "Here is my 1000 page design document that describes my idea" | 
|  | - "I've been working on this for 6 months..." | 
|  | - "Here's a 5000 line patch that..." | 
|  | - "I rewrote all of the current mess, and here it is..." | 
|  | - "I have a deadline, and this patch needs to be applied now." | 
|  |  | 
|  | Another way the kernel community is different than most traditional | 
|  | software engineering work environments is the faceless nature of | 
|  | interaction.  One benefit of using email and irc as the primary forms of | 
|  | communication is the lack of discrimination based on gender or race. | 
|  | The Linux kernel work environment is accepting of women and minorities | 
|  | because all you are is an email address.  The international aspect also | 
|  | helps to level the playing field because you can't guess gender based on | 
|  | a person's name. A man may be named Andrea and a woman may be named Pat. | 
|  | Most women who have worked in the Linux kernel and have expressed an | 
|  | opinion have had positive experiences. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The language barrier can cause problems for some people who are not | 
|  | comfortable with English.  A good grasp of the language can be needed in | 
|  | order to get ideas across properly on mailing lists, so it is | 
|  | recommended that you check your emails to make sure they make sense in | 
|  | English before sending them. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Break up your changes | 
|  | --------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | The Linux kernel community does not gladly accept large chunks of code | 
|  | dropped on it all at once.  The changes need to be properly introduced, | 
|  | discussed, and broken up into tiny, individual portions.  This is almost | 
|  | the exact opposite of what companies are used to doing.  Your proposal | 
|  | should also be introduced very early in the development process, so that | 
|  | you can receive feedback on what you are doing.  It also lets the | 
|  | community feel that you are working with them, and not simply using them | 
|  | as a dumping ground for your feature.  However, don't send 50 emails at | 
|  | one time to a mailing list, your patch series should be smaller than | 
|  | that almost all of the time. | 
|  |  | 
|  | The reasons for breaking things up are the following: | 
|  |  | 
|  | 1) Small patches increase the likelihood that your patches will be | 
|  | applied, since they don't take much time or effort to verify for | 
|  | correctness.  A 5 line patch can be applied by a maintainer with | 
|  | barely a second glance. However, a 500 line patch may take hours to | 
|  | review for correctness (the time it takes is exponentially | 
|  | proportional to the size of the patch, or something). | 
|  |  | 
|  | Small patches also make it very easy to debug when something goes | 
|  | wrong.  It's much easier to back out patches one by one than it is | 
|  | to dissect a very large patch after it's been applied (and broken | 
|  | something). | 
|  |  | 
|  | 2) It's important not only to send small patches, but also to rewrite | 
|  | and simplify (or simply re-order) patches before submitting them. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Here is an analogy from kernel developer Al Viro: | 
|  |  | 
|  | *"Think of a teacher grading homework from a math student.  The | 
|  | teacher does not want to see the student's trials and errors | 
|  | before they came up with the solution. They want to see the | 
|  | cleanest, most elegant answer.  A good student knows this, and | 
|  | would never submit her intermediate work before the final | 
|  | solution.* | 
|  |  | 
|  | *The same is true of kernel development. The maintainers and | 
|  | reviewers do not want to see the thought process behind the | 
|  | solution to the problem one is solving. They want to see a | 
|  | simple and elegant solution."* | 
|  |  | 
|  | It may be challenging to keep the balance between presenting an elegant | 
|  | solution and working together with the community and discussing your | 
|  | unfinished work. Therefore it is good to get early in the process to | 
|  | get feedback to improve your work, but also keep your changes in small | 
|  | chunks that they may get already accepted, even when your whole task is | 
|  | not ready for inclusion now. | 
|  |  | 
|  | Also realize that it is not acceptable to send patches for inclusion | 
|  | that are unfinished and will be "fixed up later." | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Justify your change | 
|  | ------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | Along with breaking up your patches, it is very important for you to let | 
|  | the Linux community know why they should add this change.  New features | 
|  | must be justified as being needed and useful. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Document your change | 
|  | -------------------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | When sending in your patches, pay special attention to what you say in | 
|  | the text in your email.  This information will become the ChangeLog | 
|  | information for the patch, and will be preserved for everyone to see for | 
|  | all time.  It should describe the patch completely, containing: | 
|  |  | 
|  | - why the change is necessary | 
|  | - the overall design approach in the patch | 
|  | - implementation details | 
|  | - testing results | 
|  |  | 
|  | For more details on what this should all look like, please see the | 
|  | ChangeLog section of the document: | 
|  |  | 
|  | "The Perfect Patch" | 
|  | https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | All of these things are sometimes very hard to do. It can take years to | 
|  | perfect these practices (if at all). It's a continuous process of | 
|  | improvement that requires a lot of patience and determination. But | 
|  | don't give up, it's possible. Many have done it before, and each had to | 
|  | start exactly where you are now. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | ---------- | 
|  |  | 
|  | Thanks to Paolo Ciarrocchi who allowed the "Development Process" | 
|  | (https://lwn.net/Articles/94386/) section | 
|  | to be based on text he had written, and to Randy Dunlap and Gerrit | 
|  | Huizenga for some of the list of things you should and should not say. | 
|  | Also thanks to Pat Mochel, Hanna Linder, Randy Dunlap, Kay Sievers, | 
|  | Vojtech Pavlik, Jan Kara, Josh Boyer, Kees Cook, Andrew Morton, Andi | 
|  | Kleen, Vadim Lobanov, Jesper Juhl, Adrian Bunk, Keri Harris, Frans Pop, | 
|  | David A. Wheeler, Junio Hamano, Michael Kerrisk, and Alex Shepard for | 
|  | their review, comments, and contributions.  Without their help, this | 
|  | document would not have been possible. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | Maintainer: Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com> |