2 How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
4 Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds
8 For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux
9 kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar
10 with "the system." This text is a collection of suggestions which
11 can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted.
13 Read Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check
14 before submitting code. If you are submitting a driver, also read
15 Documentation/SubmittingDrivers.
19 --------------------------------------------
20 SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
21 --------------------------------------------
28 Use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN" to create patches.
30 All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
31 generated by diff(1). When creating your patch, make sure to create it
32 in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1).
33 Also, please use the '-p' argument which shows which C function each
34 change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read.
35 Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory,
36 not in any lower subdirectory.
38 To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
41 MYFILE= drivers/net/mydriver.c
44 cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig
45 vi $MYFILE # make your change
47 diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch
49 To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
50 or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a diff against your
51 own source tree. For example:
53 MYSRC= /devel/linux-2.6
55 tar xvfz linux-2.6.12.tar.gz
56 mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-vanilla
57 diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.12-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
58 linux-2.6.12-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
60 "dontdiff" is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
61 the build process, and should be ignored in any diff(1)-generated
62 patch. The "dontdiff" file is included in the kernel tree in
63 2.6.12 and later. For earlier kernel versions, you can get it
64 from <http://www.xenotime.net/linux/doc/dontdiff>.
66 Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
67 belong in a patch submission. Make sure to review your patch -after-
68 generated it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy.
70 If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you may want to look into
71 splitting them into individual patches which modify things in
72 logical stages. This will facilitate easier reviewing by other
73 kernel developers, very important if you want your patch accepted.
74 There are a number of scripts which can aid in this:
77 http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt
79 Andrew Morton's patch scripts:
80 http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/patch-scripts.tar.gz
81 Instead of these scripts, quilt is the recommended patch management
86 2) Describe your changes.
88 Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
90 Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
91 things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
92 includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
94 The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
95 form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
96 system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below.
98 If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
99 need to split up your patch. See #3, next.
101 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
102 complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
103 say that this is version N of the patch (series). Don't expect the
104 patch merger to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
105 URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
106 I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
107 This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers. Some reviewers
108 probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
110 If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
114 3) Separate your changes.
116 Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file.
118 For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
119 enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
120 or more patches. If your changes include an API update, and a new
121 driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
123 On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
124 group those changes into a single patch. Thus a single logical change
125 is contained within a single patch.
127 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
128 complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
129 in your patch description.
131 If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
132 then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
136 4) Style check your changes.
138 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
139 found in Documentation/CodingStyle. Failure to do so simply wastes
140 the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
141 without even being read.
143 At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style
144 checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). You should
145 be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch.
149 5) Select e-mail destination.
151 Look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code, and determine
152 if your change applies to a specific subsystem of the kernel, with
153 an assigned maintainer. If so, e-mail that person.
155 If no maintainer is listed, or the maintainer does not respond, send
156 your patch to the primary Linux kernel developer's mailing list,
157 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org. Most kernel developers monitor this
158 e-mail list, and can comment on your changes.
161 Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
164 Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
165 Linux kernel. His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>.
166 He gets a lot of e-mail, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
169 Patches which are bug fixes, are "obvious" changes, or similarly
170 require little discussion should be sent or CC'd to Linus. Patches
171 which require discussion or do not have a clear advantage should
172 usually be sent first to linux-kernel. Only after the patch is
173 discussed should the patch then be submitted to Linus.
177 6) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list.
179 Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.
181 Other kernel developers besides Linus need to be aware of your change,
182 so that they may comment on it and offer code review and suggestions.
183 linux-kernel is the primary Linux kernel developer mailing list.
184 Other mailing lists are available for specific subsystems, such as
185 USB, framebuffer devices, the VFS, the SCSI subsystem, etc. See the
186 MAINTAINERS file for a mailing list that relates specifically to
189 Majordomo lists of VGER.KERNEL.ORG at:
190 <http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html>
192 If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send
193 the MAN-PAGES maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file)
194 a man-pages patch, or at least a notification of the change,
195 so that some information makes its way into the manual pages.
197 Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #5, make sure to ALWAYS
198 copy the maintainer when you change their code.
200 For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
201 trivial@kernel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look
202 into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager.
203 Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
204 Spelling fixes in documentation
205 Spelling fixes which could break grep(1)
206 Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
207 Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
208 Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
209 Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region)
210 Contact detail and documentation fixes
211 Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific,
212 since people copy, as long as it's trivial)
213 Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
214 in re-transmission mode)
218 7) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text.
220 Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
221 on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a kernel
222 developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
223 tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
225 For this reason, all patches should be submitting e-mail "inline".
226 WARNING: Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
227 if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
229 Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
230 Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
231 attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your
232 code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
233 decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
235 Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
236 you to re-send them using MIME.
238 See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
239 your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
243 When sending patches to Linus, always follow step #7.
245 Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
246 maintainers. If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
247 it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
248 server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.
252 9) Name your kernel version.
254 It is important to note, either in the subject line or in the patch
255 description, the kernel version to which this patch applies.
257 If the patch does not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version,
258 Linus will not apply it.
262 10) Don't get discouraged. Re-submit.
264 After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait. If Linus
265 likes your change and applies it, it will appear in the next version
266 of the kernel that he releases.
268 However, if your change doesn't appear in the next version of the
269 kernel, there could be any number of reasons. It's YOUR job to
270 narrow down those reasons, correct what was wrong, and submit your
273 It is quite common for Linus to "drop" your patch without comment.
274 That's the nature of the system. If he drops your patch, it could be
276 * Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version.
277 * Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on linux-kernel.
278 * A style issue (see section 2).
279 * An e-mail formatting issue (re-read this section).
280 * A technical problem with your change.
281 * He gets tons of e-mail, and yours got lost in the shuffle.
282 * You are being annoying.
284 When in doubt, solicit comments on linux-kernel mailing list.
288 11) Include PATCH in the subject
290 Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
291 convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH]. This lets Linus
292 and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other
299 To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
300 percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
301 layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
302 patches that are being emailed around.
304 The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
305 patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
306 pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you
307 can certify the below:
309 Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
311 By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
313 (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
314 have the right to submit it under the open source license
315 indicated in the file; or
317 (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
318 of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
319 license and I have the right under that license to submit that
320 work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
321 by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
322 permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
325 (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
326 person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
329 (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
330 are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
331 personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
332 maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
333 this project or the open source license(s) involved.
335 then you just add a line saying
337 Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
339 using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
341 Some people also put extra tags at the end. They'll just be ignored for
342 now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
343 point out some special detail about the sign-off.
345 If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
346 modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
347 exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
348 rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
349 counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
350 the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
351 make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
352 you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
353 the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
354 seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
355 enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
356 you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
358 Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
359 [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
360 Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
362 This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
363 want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
364 and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
365 can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
366 which appears in the changelog.
368 Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
369 to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
370 message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
371 here's what we see in 2.6-stable :
373 Date: Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000
375 SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling
377 commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream
379 And here's what appears in 2.4 :
381 Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
383 wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay
385 [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a]
387 Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people
388 tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your
392 13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
394 The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
395 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
397 If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a
398 patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can
399 arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog.
401 Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
402 maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
404 Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker
405 has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch
406 mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
409 Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
410 For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
411 one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
412 the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here.
413 When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
416 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
417 provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
418 This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
419 person it names. This tag documents that potentially interested parties
420 have been included in the discussion
423 14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:
425 If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a
426 Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution. Please
427 note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission,
428 especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum. That said,
429 if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
430 inspired to help us again in the future.
432 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
433 some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that
434 some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
435 future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
437 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
438 acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
440 Reviewer's statement of oversight
442 By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
444 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
445 evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
448 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
449 have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied
450 with the submitter's response to my comments.
452 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
453 submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
454 worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
455 issues which would argue against its inclusion.
457 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
458 do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
459 warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
460 purpose or function properly in any given situation.
462 A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
463 appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
464 technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
465 offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to
466 reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
467 done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
468 understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
469 increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
472 15) The canonical patch format
474 The canonical patch subject line is:
476 Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
478 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
480 - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
484 - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
485 permanent changelog to describe this patch.
487 - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
488 also go in the changelog.
490 - A marker line containing simply "---".
492 - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.
494 - The actual patch (diff output).
496 The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails
497 alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will
498 support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded,
499 the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same.
501 The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which
502 area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched.
504 The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely
505 describe the patch which that email contains. The "summary
506 phrase" should not be a filename. Do not use the same "summary
507 phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
508 series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
510 Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes a
511 globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the way
512 into the git changelog. The "summary phrase" may later be used in
513 developer discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to
514 google for the "summary phrase" to read discussion regarding that
515 patch. It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
516 when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps
517 thousands of patches using tools such as "gitk" or "git log
520 For these reasons, the "summary" must be no more than 70-75
521 characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
522 as why the patch might be necessary. It is challenging to be both
523 succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary
526 The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square
527 brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>". The tags are not
528 considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
529 should be treated. Common tags might include a version descriptor if
530 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
531 comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for
532 comments. If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
533 patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4. This assures
534 that developers understand the order in which the patches should be
535 applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in
538 A couple of example Subjects:
540 Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
541 Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
543 The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
546 From: Original Author <author@example.com>
548 The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
549 patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing,
550 then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
551 the patch author in the changelog.
553 The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
554 changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long
555 since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might
556 have led to this patch. Including symptoms of the failure which the
557 patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
558 especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs
559 looking for the applicable patch. If a patch fixes a compile failure,
560 it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just
561 enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
562 it. As in the "summary phrase", it is important to be both succinct as
565 The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
566 handling tools where the changelog message ends.
568 One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for
569 a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of
570 inserted and deleted lines per file. A diffstat is especially useful
571 on bigger patches. Other comments relevant only to the moment or the
572 maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go
573 here. A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
574 which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the
577 If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please
578 use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from
579 the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal
580 space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
582 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
586 16) Sending "git pull" requests (from Linus emails)
588 Please write the git repo address and branch name alone on the same line
589 so that I can't even by mistake pull from the wrong branch, and so
590 that a triple-click just selects the whole thing.
592 So the proper format is something along the lines of:
596 git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
598 to get these changes:"
600 so that I don't have to hunt-and-peck for the address and inevitably
601 get it wrong (actually, I've only gotten it wrong a few times, and
602 checking against the diffstat tells me when I get it wrong, but I'm
603 just a lot more comfortable when I don't have to "look for" the right
604 thing to pull, and double-check that I have the right branch-name).
607 Please use "git diff -M --stat --summary" to generate the diffstat:
608 the -M enables rename detection, and the summary enables a summary of
609 new/deleted or renamed files.
611 With rename detection, the statistics are rather different [...]
612 because git will notice that a fair number of the changes are renames.
614 -----------------------------------
615 SECTION 2 - HINTS, TIPS, AND TRICKS
616 -----------------------------------
618 This section lists many of the common "rules" associated with code
619 submitted to the kernel. There are always exceptions... but you must
620 have a really good reason for doing so. You could probably call this
621 section Linus Computer Science 101.
625 1) Read Documentation/CodingStyle
627 Nuff said. If your code deviates too much from this, it is likely
628 to be rejected without further review, and without comment.
630 One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
631 another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in
632 the same patch which moves it. This clearly delineates the act of
633 moving the code and your changes. This greatly aids review of the
634 actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
637 Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
638 (scripts/checkpatch.pl). The style checker should be viewed as
639 a guide not as the final word. If your code looks better with
640 a violation then its probably best left alone.
642 The checker reports at three levels:
643 - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
644 - WARNING: things requiring careful review
645 - CHECK: things requiring thought
647 You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
654 Code cluttered with ifdefs is difficult to read and maintain. Don't do
655 it. Instead, put your ifdefs in a header, and conditionally define
656 'static inline' functions, or macros, which are used in the code.
657 Let the compiler optimize away the "no-op" case.
659 Simple example, of poor code:
661 dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
664 #ifdef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
671 #ifndef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
672 static inline void init_funky_net (struct net_device *d) {}
676 dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
683 3) 'static inline' is better than a macro
685 Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
686 They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
687 limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
689 Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
690 suboptimal [there are a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
691 or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
694 'static inline' is preferred over 'static __inline__', 'extern inline',
695 and 'extern __inline__'.
699 4) Don't over-design.
701 Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not
702 be useful: "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler."
706 ----------------------
707 SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
708 ----------------------
710 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
711 <http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
713 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
714 <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
716 Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
717 <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
718 <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/07/08/>
719 <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/10/19/>
720 <http://www.kroah.com/log/2006/01/11/>
722 NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
723 <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112112749912944&w=2>
725 Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle:
726 <http://users.sosdg.org/~qiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle>
728 Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format:
729 <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
731 Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
732 Some strategies to get difficult or controversal changes in.
733 http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf