mirror of
				git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
				synced 2025-10-31 08:44:41 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	 c607cf0c20
			
		
	
	
		c607cf0c20
		
	
	
	
	
		
			
			One of the roles which -mm fulfilled some time ago (to offer an integration testing ground) has been taken over by -next. This is still news to Documentation/HOWTO, so mention it there. Also add a word on how patchwork is used to track patches as they make their way into subsystem trees. Remove some arbitrary links to subsystem repositories; they can all be found in the MAINTAINERS database. Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
		
			
				
	
	
		
			610 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			27 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			610 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			27 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
| 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| If anything in this document becomes out of date, please send in patches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
 | |
|   - subsystem specific kernel trees and patches
 | |
|   - the 2.6.x -next kernel tree for integration tests
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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
 | |
|     -next 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.
 | |
| 
 | |
| Subsystem Specific kernel trees and patches
 | |
| -------------------------------------------
 | |
| 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 http://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
 | |
| http://patchwork.kernel.org/ or http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 2.6.x -next kernel tree for integration tests
 | |
| ---------------------------------------------
 | |
| Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline 2.6.x
 | |
| 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:
 | |
| 	http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git
 | |
| 	http://linux.f-seidel.de/linux-next/pmwiki/
 | |
| 
 | |
| This way, the -next kernel 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 -next kernel.
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| 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>
 |