Optimize the text flow to make things more straight forward to follow:
* remove a subheading without real purpose
* after outlining the three options add a section that explains them in
more detail; move the "Following the submission" text that set in the
middle of this to a later place in the document
* a few small clarifications along the way
CC: Greg KH <[email protected]>
CC: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 156 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 85d5d2368034..a9f36912b9dc 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -40,74 +40,45 @@ Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
process but should follow the procedures in
:ref:`Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
-For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------
+There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
-.. _option_1:
+ 1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you want to mainline.
+ 2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
+ 3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a mainlined patch.
-Option 1
-********
-
-To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
-
-.. code-block:: none
+The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.
- Cc: [email protected]
-
-in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style
-inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
-applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
-author or subsystem maintainer.
-
-.. _option_2:
-
-Option 2
-********
+:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common.
+:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
+worthy at the time it is submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because
+it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
+useful if the original upstream patch needs to be adjusted to be included in
+older series (for example the backport needs some special handling due to e.g.
+API changes).
-After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
[email protected] containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
-why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
-be applied to.
+ .. _option_1:
-.. _option_3:
-
-Option 3
+Option 1
********
-Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
[email protected]. You must note the upstream commit ID in the
-changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
-it to be applied to.
-
-:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
-:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
-worthy at the time it is applied to a public git tree (for instance, because
-it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
-useful if the original upstream patch needs to be backported (for example
-the backport needs some special handling due to e.g. API changes).
-
-Note that for :ref:`option_3`, if the patch deviates from the original
-upstream patch (for example because it had to be backported) this must be very
-clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
-
-The upstream commit ID must be specified with a separate line above the commit
-text, like this:
+To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion automatically picked up for
+the stable tree later, add the tag
.. code-block:: none
- commit <sha1> upstream.
-
-or alternatively:
+ Cc: [email protected]
-.. code-block:: none
+in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the
+stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or
+subsystem maintainer.
- [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+You can add a note with additional instructions using a shell-style inline
+comment:
-Additionally, some patches submitted via :ref:`option_1` may have additional
-patch prerequisites which can be cherry-picked. This can be specified in the
-following format in the sign-off area:
+ * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the
+ following format in the sign-off area:
-.. code-block:: none
+ .. code-block:: none
Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
@@ -115,53 +86,88 @@ following format in the sign-off area:
Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
-The tag sequence has the meaning of:
+ The tag sequence has the meaning of:
-.. code-block:: none
+ .. code-block:: none
git cherry-pick a1f84a3
git cherry-pick 1b9508f
git cherry-pick fd21073
git cherry-pick <this commit>
-Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites. This can be
-specified in the following format in the sign-off area:
+ * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
+ the following format in the sign-off area:
-.. code-block:: none
+ .. code-block:: none
Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x
-The tag has the meaning of:
+ The tag has the meaning of:
-.. code-block:: none
+ .. code-block:: none
git cherry-pick <this commit>
-For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
+ For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
-To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
-format:
+ * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:
-.. code-block:: none
+ .. code-block:: none
Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline
-For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
-add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
-problems:
+ * For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example
+ can be used to point out known problems:
-.. code-block:: none
+ .. code-block:: none
Cc: <[email protected]> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
-Following the submission:
+.. _option_2:
+
+Option 2
+********
+
+If the patch already has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
[email protected] containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
+why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
+be applied to.
+
+.. _option_3:
+
+Option 3
+********
+
+Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
[email protected] and mention the kernel version you wish it to be applied
+to.
+
+When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your
+submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ commit <sha1> upstream.
+
+or alternatively:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+ [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+
+If the patch submitted using this option deviates from the original upstream
+patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must
+be very clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
+
+Following the submission
+------------------------
- - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
- queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few
- days, according to the developer's schedules.
- - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by
- other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
+The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the queue,
+or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few days,
+according to the developer's schedules.
+If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by other
+developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
Review cycle
------------
--
2.40.1
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:13PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Optimize the text flow to make things more straight forward to follow:
>
> * remove a subheading without real purpose
> * after outlining the three options add a section that explains them in
> more detail; move the "Following the submission" text that set in the
> middle of this to a later place in the document
> * a few small clarifications along the way
All of this churn makes it really hard to determine what the end result
is. Do you have a before/after result anywhere?
Or maybe split this out into 3 different patches?
thanks,
greg k-h