619 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			27 KiB
			
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
		
		
			
		
	
	
			619 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|  | If anything in this document becomes out of date, please send in patches | ||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] | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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@gmx.net. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/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://sosdg.org/~coywolf/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. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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 digit 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 almost every other week. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sam/kbuild.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - ACPI development tree, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-acpi-2.6.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - Block development tree, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-2.6-block.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - DRM development tree, Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/airlied/drm-2.6.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - ia64 development tree, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/aegl/linux-2.6.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - ieee1394 development tree, Jody McIntyre <scjody@modernduck.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/scjody/ieee1394.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - infiniband, Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - libata, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - network drivers, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - pcmcia, Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/pcmcia-2.6.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |     - SCSI, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi-misc-2.6.git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |   Other git kernel trees can be found listed at http://kernel.org/git | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  |   quilt trees: | ||
|  |     - USB, PCI, Driver Core, and I2C, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> | ||
|  | 	kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/gregkh-2.6/ | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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://test.kernel.org/bugzilla/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. | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 
 | ||
|  | 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://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/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" 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> |