652 lines
		
	
	
		
			29 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			652 lines
		
	
	
		
			29 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
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If anything in this document becomes out of date, please send in patches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, for details on
 | 
						|
the license.  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:
 | 
						|
	http://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:
 | 
						|
  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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/Changes
 | 
						|
    This file gives a list of the minimum levels of various software
 | 
						|
    packages that are necessary to build and run the kernel
 | 
						|
    successfully.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/SubmittingPatches
 | 
						|
  Documentation/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"
 | 
						|
		http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
 | 
						|
	"Linux kernel patch submission format"
 | 
						|
		http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
 | 
						|
    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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
 | 
						|
    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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/kernel-docs.txt
 | 
						|
    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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Documentation/applying-patches.txt
 | 
						|
    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.  This includes a
 | 
						|
full description of the in-kernel API, and rules on how to handle
 | 
						|
locking properly.  The documents will be created in the
 | 
						|
Documentation/DocBook/ directory and can be generated as PDF,
 | 
						|
Postscript, HTML, and man pages by running:
 | 
						|
	make pdfdocs
 | 
						|
	make psdocs
 | 
						|
	make htmldocs
 | 
						|
	make mandocs
 | 
						|
respectively from the main kernel source directory.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Becoming A Kernel Developer
 | 
						|
---------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If you do not know anything about Linux kernel development, you should
 | 
						|
look at the Linux KernelNewbies project:
 | 
						|
	http://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:
 | 
						|
	http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/
 | 
						|
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.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If you already have a chunk of code that you want to put into the kernel
 | 
						|
tree, but need some help getting it in the proper form, the
 | 
						|
kernel-mentors project was created to help you out with this.  It is a
 | 
						|
mailing list, and can be found at:
 | 
						|
	http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-mentors
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
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:
 | 
						|
	http://users.sosdg.org/~qiyong/lxr/
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
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:
 | 
						|
  - main 2.6.x kernel tree
 | 
						|
  - 2.6.x.y -stable kernel tree
 | 
						|
  - 2.6.x -git kernel patches
 | 
						|
  - 2.6.x -mm kernel patches
 | 
						|
  - subsystem specific kernel trees and patches
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
2.6.x kernel tree
 | 
						|
-----------------
 | 
						|
2.6.x kernels are maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found on
 | 
						|
kernel.org in the pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ directory.  Its development
 | 
						|
process is as follows:
 | 
						|
  - As soon as a new kernel is released a two weeks 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
 | 
						|
    -mm kernel 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 http://git.or.cz/) but plain patches are also just
 | 
						|
    fine.
 | 
						|
  - After two weeks a -rc1 kernel is released it is now possible to push
 | 
						|
    only patches that do not include new features that could affect the
 | 
						|
    stability of the whole kernel.  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.
 | 
						|
  - Known regressions in each release are periodically posted to the 
 | 
						|
    linux-kernel mailing list.  The goal is to reduce the length of 
 | 
						|
    that list to zero before declaring the kernel to be "ready," but, in
 | 
						|
    the real world, a small number of regressions often remain at 
 | 
						|
    release time.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
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."
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
2.6.x.y -stable kernel tree
 | 
						|
---------------------------
 | 
						|
Kernels with 4-part versions are -stable kernels. They contain
 | 
						|
relatively small and critical fixes for security problems or significant
 | 
						|
regressions discovered in a given 2.6.x kernel.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
This is the recommended branch for users who want the most recent stable
 | 
						|
kernel and are not interested in helping test development/experimental
 | 
						|
versions.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If no 2.6.x.y kernel is available, then the highest numbered 2.6.x
 | 
						|
kernel is the current stable kernel.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
2.6.x.y are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@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 Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt in the kernel tree
 | 
						|
documents what kinds of changes are acceptable for the -stable tree, and
 | 
						|
how the release process works.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
2.6.x -git patches
 | 
						|
------------------
 | 
						|
These are daily snapshots of Linus' kernel tree which are managed in a
 | 
						|
git repository (hence the name.) These patches are usually released
 | 
						|
daily and represent the current state of Linus' tree.  They are more
 | 
						|
experimental than -rc kernels since they are generated automatically
 | 
						|
without even a cursory glance to see if they are sane.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
2.6.x -mm kernel patches
 | 
						|
------------------------
 | 
						|
These are experimental kernel patches released by Andrew Morton.  Andrew
 | 
						|
takes all of the different subsystem kernel trees and patches and mushes
 | 
						|
them together, along with a lot of patches that have been plucked from
 | 
						|
the linux-kernel mailing list.  This tree serves as a proving ground for
 | 
						|
new features and patches.  Once a patch has proved its worth in -mm for
 | 
						|
a while Andrew or the subsystem maintainer pushes it on to Linus for
 | 
						|
inclusion in mainline.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
It is heavily encouraged that all new patches get tested in the -mm tree
 | 
						|
before they are sent to Linus for inclusion in the main kernel tree.  Code
 | 
						|
which does not make an appearance in -mm before the opening of the merge
 | 
						|
window will prove hard to merge into the mainline.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
These kernels are not appropriate for use on systems that are supposed
 | 
						|
to be stable and they are more risky to run than any of the other
 | 
						|
branches.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If you wish to help out with the kernel development process, please test
 | 
						|
and use these kernel releases and provide feedback to the linux-kernel
 | 
						|
mailing list if you have any problems, and if everything works properly.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In addition to all the other experimental patches, these kernels usually
 | 
						|
also contain any changes in the mainline -git kernels available at the
 | 
						|
time of release.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The -mm kernels are not released on a fixed schedule, but usually a few
 | 
						|
-mm kernels are released in between each -rc kernel (1 to 3 is common).
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Subsystem Specific kernel trees and patches
 | 
						|
-------------------------------------------
 | 
						|
A number of the different kernel subsystem developers expose their
 | 
						|
development trees so that others can see what is happening in the
 | 
						|
different areas of the kernel.  These trees are pulled into the -mm
 | 
						|
kernel releases as described above.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Here is a list of some of the different kernel trees available:
 | 
						|
  git trees:
 | 
						|
    - Kbuild development tree, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sam/kbuild.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - ACPI development tree, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - Block development tree, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-2.6-block.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - DRM development tree, Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/airlied/drm-2.6.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - ia64 development tree, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/aegl/linux-2.6.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - infiniband, Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - libata, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - network drivers, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - pcmcia, Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/pcmcia-2.6.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - SCSI, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
 | 
						|
	git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi-misc-2.6.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    - x86, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
 | 
						|
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86.git
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  quilt trees:
 | 
						|
    - USB, Driver Core, and I2C, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
 | 
						|
	kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Other kernel trees can be found listed at http://git.kernel.org/ and in
 | 
						|
  the MAINTAINERS file.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Bug Reporting
 | 
						|
-------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
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:
 | 
						|
	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/page.cgi?id=faq.html
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The file REPORTING-BUGS 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, you'll 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 http://bugzilla.kernel.org.
 | 
						|
If you want to be advised of the future bug reports, you can subscribe to the
 | 
						|
bugme-new mailing list (only new bug reports are mailed here) or to the
 | 
						|
bugme-janitor mailing list (every change in the bugzilla is mailed here)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
	http://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bugme-new
 | 
						|
	http://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bugme-janitors
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
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 Documentation/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 try 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"
 | 
						|
      http://userweb.kernel.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"
 | 
						|
(http://linux.tar.bz/articles/2.6-development_process) 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>
 |