Import as-is much of the old "Patches" wiki page to the current sending_patches.rst file. This means we need to move patman to being included in the higher level ToC and add a reference for "Custodians" in the process document. A very minimal amount of content changing and rewording is done here as part of the import, in order to make the conversion easier.

Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com --- doc/develop/index.rst | 1 + doc/develop/process.rst | 2 + doc/develop/sending_patches.rst | 503 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 3 files changed, 503 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/develop/index.rst b/doc/develop/index.rst index f7ee09db2467..72332f7da6dd 100644 --- a/doc/develop/index.rst +++ b/doc/develop/index.rst @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ General

codingstyle designprinciples + patman process release_cycle system_configuration diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst index 388945cf9bb9..6a18a8104aa2 100644 --- a/doc/develop/process.rst +++ b/doc/develop/process.rst @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ Differences to the Linux Development Process In U-Boot, ``"-rc1"`` will only be released after all (or at least most of the) patches that were submitted during the merge window have been applied.

+.. _custodians: + Custodians ----------

diff --git a/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst b/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst index 0542adeaed9f..506501203a99 100644 --- a/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst +++ b/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst @@ -3,14 +3,511 @@ Sending patches ===============

-.. toctree:: - :maxdepth: 2 +*Before you begin* to implement any new ideas or concepts it is always a good +idea to present your plans on the `U-Boot mailing list +https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot`_. U-Boot supports a huge amount of +very different systems, and it is often impossible for the individual developer +to oversee the consequences of a specific change to all architectures. +Discussing concepts early can help you to avoid spending effort on code which, +when submitted as a patch, might be rejected and/or will need lots of rework +because it does not fit for some reason. Early peer review is an important +resource - use it.

- patman +A good introduction how to prepare for submitting patches can be found in the +LWN article `How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel +http://lwn.net/Articles/139918/`_ as the same rules apply to U-Boot, too.

+Using patman +------------

You can use a tool called patman to prepare, check and sent patches. It creates change logs, cover letters and patch notes. It also simplified the process of sending multiple versions of a series.

See more details at :doc:`patman`. + +General Patch Submission Rules +------------------------------ + +* All patches must be sent to the `u-boot@lists.denx.de + https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot`_ mailing list. + +* If your patch affects the code maintained by one of the :ref:`custodians`, CC + them when emailing your patch. The easiest way to make sure you don't forget + this even when you resubmit the patch later is to add a ``Cc: name + <address>`` line after your ``Signed-off-by:`` line (see the example below). + +* Take a look at the commit logs of the files you are modifying. Authors of + past commits might have input to your change, so also CC them if you think + they may have feedback. + +* Patches should always contain exactly one complete logical change, i. e. + + * Changes that contain different, unrelated modifications shall be submitted + as *separate* patches, one patch per changeset. + + * If one logical set of modifications affects or creates several files, all + these changes shall be submitted in a *single* patch. + +* Non-functional changes, i.e. whitespace and reformatting changes, should be + done in separate patches marked as ``cosmetic``. This separation of functional + and cosmetic changes greatly facilitates the review process. + +* Some comments on running ``checkpatch.pl``: + + * Checkpatch is a tool that can help you find some style problems, but is + imperfect, and the things it complains about are of varying importance. + So use common sense in interpreting the results. + + * Warnings that clearly only make sense in the Linux kernel can be ignored. + This includes ``Use #include <linux/$file> instead of <asm/$file>`` for + example. + + * If you encounter warnings for existing code, not modified by your patch, + consider submitting a separate, cosmetic-only patch -- clearly described + as such -- that *precedes* your substantive patch. + + * For minor modifications (e.g. changed arguments of a function call), + adhere to the present codingstyle of the module. Relating checkpatch + warnings can be ignored in this case. A respective note in the commit or + cover letter why they are ignored is desired. + +* Send your patches as plain text messages: no HTML, no MIME, no links, no + compression, no attachments. Just plain text. The best way the generate + patches is by using the ``git format-patch`` command. Please use the + ``master`` branch of the mainline U-Boot git repository + (``https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot.git%60%60) as reference, unless (usually + late in a release cycle) there has been an announcement to use the ``next`` + branch of this repository instead. + +* Make sure that your mailer does not mangle the patch by automatic changes + like wrapping of longer lines etc. + The best way to send patches is by not using your regular mail tool, but by + using either ``git send-email`` or the ``git imap-send`` command instead. + If you believe you need to use a mailing list for testing (instead of any + regular mail address you own), we have a special test list for such purposes. + It would be best to subscribe to the list for the duration of your tests to + avoid repeated moderation - see https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/test + +* Choose a meaningful Subject: - keep in mind that the Subject will also be + visible as headline of your commit message. Make sure the subject does not + exceed 60 characters or so. + +* The start of the subject should be a meaningfull tag (arm:, ppc:, tegra:, + net:, ext2:, etc) + +* Include the string "PATCH" in the Subject: line of your message, e. g. + "[PATCH] Add support for feature X". ``git format-patch`` should automatically + do this. + +* If you are sending a patch series composed of multiple patches, make sure + their titles clearly state the patch order and total number of patches (``git + format-patch -n``). Also, often times an introductory email describing what + the patchset does is useful (``git format-patch -n --cover-letter``). As an + example:: + + [PATCH 0/3] Add support for new SuperCPU2000 + (This email does not contain a patch, just a description) + [PATCH 1/3] Add core support for SuperCPU2000 + [PATCH 2/3] Add support for SuperCPU2000's on-chip I2C controller + [PATCH 3/3] Add support for SuperCPU2000's on-chip UART + +* In the message body, include a description of your changes. + + * For bug fixes: a description of the bug and how your patch fixes this bug. + Please try to include a way of demonstrating that the patch actually fixes + something. + + * For new features: a description of the feature and your implementation. + +* Additional comments which you don't want included in U-Boot's history can be + included below the first "---" in the message body. + +* If your description gets too long, that's a strong indication that you should + split up your patch. + +* Remember that there is a size limit of 100 kB on the mailing list. In most + cases, you did something wrong if your patch exceeds this limit. Think again + if you should not split it into separate logical parts. + +Attributing Code, Copyrights, Signing +------------------------------------- + +* Sign your changes, i. e. add a *Signed-off-by:* line to the message body. + This can be automated by using ``git commit -s``. + +* If you change or add *significant* parts to a file, then please make sure to + add your copyright to that file, for example like this:: + + (C) Copyright 2010 Joe Hacker jh@hackers.paradise.com + + Please do *not* include a detailed description of your + changes. We use the *git* commit messages for this purpose. + +* If you add new files, please always make sure that these contain your + copyright note and a GPLv2+ SPDX-License-Identifier, for example like this:: + + (C) Copyright 2010 Joe Hacker jh@hackers.paradise.com + + SPDX-License-Identifier:<TAB>GPL-2.0+ + +* If you are copying or adapting code from other projects, like the Linux + kernel, or BusyBox, or similar, please make sure to state clearly where you + copied the code from, and provide terse but precise information which exact + version or even commit ID was used. Follow the ideas of this note from the + Linux "SubmittingPatches" document:: + + Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practice + to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit + message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance, + here's what we see in 2.6-stable : + + Date: Tue May 13 19:10:30 2008 +0000 + + SCSI: libiscsi regression in 2.6.25: fix nop timer handling + + commit 4cf1043593db6a337f10e006c23c69e5fc93e722 upstream + + And here's what appears in 2.4 : + + Date: Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200 + + wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay + + [backport of 2.6 commit b7acbdfbd1f277c1eb23f344f899cfa4cd0bf36a] + +Whatever the format, this information provides a valuable help to people +tracking your trees, and to people trying to trouble-shoot bugs in your +tree. + +Commit message conventions +-------------------------- + +Please adhere to the following conventions when writing your commit +log messages. + +* The first line of the log message is the summary line. Keep this less than 70 + characters long. + +* Don't use periods to end the summary line (e.g., don't do "Add support for + X.") + +* Use the present tense in your summary line (e.g., "Add support for X" rather + than "Added support for X"). Furthermore, use the present tense in your log + message to describe what the patch is doing. This isn't a strict rule -- it's + OK to use the past tense for describing things that were happening in the old + code for example. + +* Use the imperative tense in your summary line (e.g., "Add support for X" + rather than "Adds support for X"). In general, you can think of the summary + line as "this commit is meant to 'Add support for X'" + +* If applicable, prefix the summary line with a word describing what area of + code is being affected followed by a colon. This is a standard adopted by + both U-Boot and Linux. For example, if your change affects all mpc85xx + boards, prefix your summary line with "mpc85xx:". If your change affects the + PCI common code, prefix your summary line with "pci:". The best thing to do + is look at the "git log <file>" output to see what others have done so you + don't break conventions. + +* Insert a blank line after the summary line + +* For bug fixes, it's good practice to briefly describe how things behaved + before this commit + +* Put a detailed description after the summary and blank line. If the summary + line is sufficient to describe the change (e.g. it is a trivial spelling + correction or whitespace update), you can omit the blank line and detailed + description. + +* End your log message with S.O.B. (Signed-off-by) line. This is done + automatically when you use ``git commit -s``. + +* Keep EVERY line under 72 characters. That is, your message should be + line-wrapped with line-feeds. However, don't get carried away and wrap it too + short either since this also looks funny. + +* Detail level: The audience of the commit log message that you should cater to + is those familiar with the underlying source code you are modifying, but who + are _not_ familiar with the patch you are submitting. They should be able to + determine what is being changed and why. Avoid excessive low-level detail. + Before submitting, re-read your commit log message with this audience in mind + and adjust as needed. + +Sending updated patch versions +------------------------------ + +It is pretty normal that the first version of a patch you are submitting does +not get accepted as is, and that you are asked to submit another, improved +version. + +When re-posting such a new version of your patch(es), please always make sure +to observe the following rules. + +* Make an appropriate note that this is a re-submission in the subject line, + eg. "[PATCH v2] Add support for feature X". ``git format-patch + --subject-prefix="PATCH v2"`` can be used in this case (see the example + below). + +* Please make sure to keep a "change log", i. e. a description of what you have + changed compared to previous versions of this patch. This change log should + be added below the "---" line in the patch, which starts the "comment + section", i. e. which contains text that does not get included into the + actual commit message. + Note: it is *not* sufficient to provide a change log in some cover letter + that gets sent as a separate message with the patch series. The reason is + that such cover letters are not as easily reviewed in our `patchwork queue + http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/`_ so they are not helpful + to any reviewers using this tool. Example:: + + From: Joe Hacker jh@hackers.paradise.com + Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2222 12:21:22 +0200 + Subject: [PATCH 1/2 v3] FOO: add timewarp-support + + This patch adds timewarp-support for the FOO family of processors. + + adapted for the current kernel structures. + + Signed-off-by: Joe Hacker jh@hackers.paradise.com + Cc: Tom Maintainer tm@u-boot.custodians.org + --- + Changes for v2: + - Coding Style cleanup + - fixed miscalculation of time-space discontinuities + Changes for v3: + - fixed compiler warnings observed with GCC-17.3.5 + - worked around integer overflow in warp driver + + arch/foo/cpu/spacetime.c | 8 + + drivers/warp/Kconfig | 7 + + drivers/warp/Makefile | 42 +++ + drivers/warp/warp-core.c | 255 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ + +* Make sure that your mailer adds or keeps correct ``In-reply-to:`` and + ``References:`` headers, so threading of messages is working and everybody + can see that the new message refers to some older posting of the same topic. + +Uncommented and un-threaded repostings are extremely annoying and +time-consuming, as we have to try to remember if anything similar has been +posted before, look up the old threads, and then manually compare if anything +has been changed, or what. + +If you have problems with your e-mail client, for example because it mangles +white space or wraps long lines, then please read this article about `Email +Clients and Patches http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Email_Clients_and_Patches`_. + +Notes +----- + +1. U-Boot is Free Software that can redistributed and/or modified under the + terms of the `GNU General Public License + http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html`_ (GPL). Currently (July + 2009) version 2 of the GPL applies. Please see :download:`Licensing + <../../Licenses/README>` for details. To allow that later versions of U-Boot + may be released under a later version of the GPL, all new code that gets + added to U-Boot shall use a "GPL-2.0+" SPDX-License-Identifier. + +2. All code must follow the :doc:`codingstyle` requirements. + +3. Before sending the patch, you *must* run the ``MAKEALL`` script on your + patched source tree and make sure that no errors or warnings are reported + for any of the boards. Well, at least not any more warnings than without + your patch. It is *strongly* recommended to verify that out-of-tree + building (with ``-O`` _make_ option resp. ``BUILD_DIR`` environment + variable) is still working. For example, run ``BUILD_DIR=/tmp/u-boot-build ./MAKEALL``. + Please also run ``MAKEALL`` for *at least one other architecture* than the one + you made your modifications in. + +4. If you modify existing code, make sure that your new code does not add to + the memory footprint of the code. Remember: Small is beautiful! When adding + new features, these should compile conditionally only (using the + configuration system resp. #ifdef), and the resulting code with the new + feature disabled must not need more memory than the old code without your + modification. + +Patch Tracking +-------------- + +Like some other project U-Boot uses `Patchwork http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/`_ +to track the state of patches. This is one of the reasons why it is mandatory +to submit all patches to the U-Boot mailing list - only then they will be +picked up by patchwork. + +At http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/ you can find the list of +open U-Boot patches. By using the "Filters" link (Note: requires JavaScript) +you can also select other views, for example, to include old patches that have, +for example, already been applied or rejected. + +A Custodian has additional privileges and can: + +* **Delegate** a patch + +* **Change the state** of a patch. The following states exist: + + * New + + * Under Review + + * Accepted + + * Rejected + + * RFC + + * Not Applicable + + * Changes Requested + + * Awaiting Upstream + + * Superseeded + + * Deferred + + * Archived + +Patchwork work-flow +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +At the moment we are in the process of defining our work-flow with +Patchwork, so I try to summarize what the states and state changes +mean; most of this information is based on this `mail thread +http://old.nabble.com/patchwork-states-and-workflow-td19579954.html`_. + +* New: Patch has been submitted to the list, and none of the maintainers has + changed it's state since. + +* Under Review: + +* Accepted: When a patch has been applied to a custodian repository that gets + used for pulling from into upstream, they are put into "accepted" state. + +* Rejected: Rejected means we just don't want to do what the patch does. + +* RFC: The patch is not intended to be applied to any of the mainline + repositories, but merely for discussing or testing some idea or new feature. + +* Not Applicable: The patch does not apply cleanly against the current U-Boot + repository, most probably because it was made against a much older version of + U-Boot, or because the submitter's mailer mangled it (for example by + converting TABs into SPACEs, or by breaking long lines). + +* Changes Requested: The patch looks mostly OK, but requires some rework before + it will be accepted for mainline. + +* Awaiting Upstream: + +* Superseeded: Patches are marked as 'superseeded' when the poster submits a + new version of these patches. + +* Deferred: Deferred usually means the patch depends on something else that + isn't upstream, such as patches that only apply against some specific other + repository. + +* Archived: Archiving puts the patch away somewhere where it doesn't appear in + the normal pages and needs extra effort to get to. + +We also can put patches in a "bundle". I don't know yet if that has any deeper +sense but to mark them to be handled together, like a patch series that +logically belongs together. + +Apply patches +^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +To apply a patch from the `patchwork queue +http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/`_ using ``git``, download the +mbox file and apply it using:: + + git am file + +The `openembedded wiki http://wiki.openembedded.net/`_ also provides a script +named `pw-am.sh +http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/tree/contrib/patchwork/pw-am.sh`_ +which can be used to fetch an 'mbox' patch from patchwork and git am it:: + + usage: pw-am.sh <number> + example: 'pw-am.sh 71002' will get and apply the patch from http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/71002/ + +Update the state of patches +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + +You have to register to be able to update the state of patches. You can use the +Web interface, `pwclient`, or `pwparser`. + +pwclient +^^^^^^^^ + +The `pwclient` command line tool can be used for example to retrieve patches, +search the queue or update the state. + +All necessary information for `pwclient` is linked from the bottom of +http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/ + +Use:: + + pwclient help + +for an overview on how to use it. + +pwparser +^^^^^^^^ + +See http://www.mail-archive.com/patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org/msg00057.html + +Review Process, Git Tags +------------------------ + +There are a number of *git tags* that are used to document the origin +and the processing of patches on their way into the mainline U-Boot +code. The following is an attempt to document how these are usually +handled in the U-Boot project. In general, we try to follow the +established procedures from other projects, especially the Linux +kernel, but there may be smaller differences. For reference, see +the Linux kernel's `Submitting patches https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html`_ document. + +* Signed-off-by: the *Signed-off-by:* is a line at the end of the commit + message by which the signer certifies that he was involved in the development + of the patch and that he accepts the `Developer Certificate of Origin + https://developercertificate.org/`_. In U-Boot, we typically do not add a + *Signed-off-by:* if we just pass on a patch without any changes. + +* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according to + the `Reveiwer's statement of oversight + https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight`_. + A *Reviewed-by:* tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an + appropriate modification of the code without any remaining serious technical + issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a + *Reviewed-by:* tag for a patch. + +* Acked-by: If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or + handling of a patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it + then they can arrange to have an *Acked-by:* line added to the patch's + changelog. + +* Tested-by: A *Tested-by:* tag indicates that the patch has been successfully + tested (in some environment) by the person named. Andrew Morton: "I think + it's very useful information to have. For a start, it tells you who has the + hardware and knows how to build a kernel. So if you're making a change to a + driver and want it tested, you can troll the file's changelog looking for + people who might be able to help." + +* Reported-by: If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, + consider adding a *Reported-by:* tag to credit the reporter for their + contribution. Please note that this tag should not be added without the + reporter's permission, especially if the problem was not reported in a public + forum. + +* Cc: If a person should have the opportunity to comment on a patch, you may + optionally add a *Cc:* tag to the patch. Git tools (git send-email) will then + automatically arrange that he receives a copy of the patch when you submit it + to the mainling list. This is the only tag which might be added without an + explicit action by the person it names. This tag documents that potentially + interested parties have been included in the discussion. + For example, when your change affects a specific board or driver, then makes + a lot of sense to put the respective maintainer of this code on Cc: + +Note that Patchwork automatically tracks and collects such git tags +from follow-up mails, so it is usually better to apply a patch through +the Patchwork commandline interface than just manually applying it +from a posting on the mailing list (in which case you have to do all +the tracking and adding of git tags yourself).