| 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 | If anything in this document becomes out of date, please send in patches | 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://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. | 
 |  | 
 | 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-scm.com/) 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/. | 
 |  | 
 | 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://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> |