* various fine tuning to the text that cleans up rough edges the three previous preparatory patches left behind to keep the diffs simpler * s/Linus' tree/mainline/g, as that's the term more commonly used and known * create a short intro for the three submission options and streamline the explanation when to use which of them * fix a >= vs <= thinko in an example to make it more straight forward * there were two blank lines before some sub-headings and just one before others; use the former style everywhere
CC: Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org CC: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org CC: Jonathan Corbet corbet@lwn.net Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 72 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index 597016297fb4..2b7f04211d9d 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc).
+ Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree ----------------------------------------------------
@@ -41,33 +42,40 @@ Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
-: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). + 1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you then submit for + mainline inclusion. + 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 change already + mainlined. + +The sections below describe each of the options in more detail. + +:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common. +:ref:`option_2` is mainly meant for changes where backporting was not considered +at the time of submission. :ref:`option_3` is an alternative to the two earlier +options for cases where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older +series (for example due to API changes).
.. _option_1:
Option 1 ********
-To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag +To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion later automatically picked up +for stable trees, add the tag
.. code-block:: none
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
-in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to the +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.
-To accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style inline comment (see -below for details): +To sent additional instructions to the stable team, use 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 + * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the following format in the sign-off area:
.. code-block:: none @@ -87,8 +95,8 @@ below for details): 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
@@ -102,27 +110,28 @@ below for details):
For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
- * To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following - format: + Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the + appropriate versions from Fixes: tags. + + * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:
.. code-block:: none
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 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
- Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3 + Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3
.. _option_2:
Option 2 ********
-After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to +If the patch already has been merged to mainline, send an email to stable@vger.kernel.org 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. @@ -133,16 +142,9 @@ Option 3 ********
Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to -stable@vger.kernel.org. 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. - -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: +stable@vger.kernel.org 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
@@ -154,12 +156,17 @@ or alternatively:
[ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+If the submitted patch 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. +days, according to the schedules of the stable team members.
If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer. @@ -191,6 +198,7 @@ Review cycle security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle. Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
+ Trees -----