[PATCH 0/8] Documentation: Updating docs and links relating to patches.

[PATCH 0/8] Documentation: Updating docs and links relating to patches.

[Ben Minerds]

 This patch series 1. adds "the perfect patch" doc 2. adds "submission format"
 doc 3. update refs to perfect-patch 4. fix link in perfect patch 5. update
 refs to sub-format 6. fix source ref in perfect patch 7. reformat  submission
 format doc 8. move other documents into patch sub directory.

Ben Minerds (8):
  Documentation: Adding "The Perfect Patch" by Andrew Morton
  Documentation: Adding "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format"
  Documentation: Replacing references to broken perfect patch URL
  Documentation: Replacing reference to broken perfect patch URL
  Documentation: Replacing reference to broken submission format URL
  Documentation: Updating a broken link in "the perfect patch"
  Documentation: Reformatting "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format"
  Documentation: Move other patch related document

 Documentation/HOWTO                                |  12 +-
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches                    | 743 ---------------------
 Documentation/applying-patches.txt                 | 454 -------------
 .../patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt            | 131 ++++
 .../development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches  | 743 +++++++++++++++++++++
 .../patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt                  | 167 +++++
 .../patches/applying-patches.txt                   | 454 +++++++++++++
 Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO                          |  10 +-
 Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches              |   4 +-
 Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO                          |   6 +-
 Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO                          |   6 +-
 Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches              |   4 +-
 12 files changed, 1516 insertions(+), 1218 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/SubmittingPatches
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/applying-patches.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/applying-patches.txt

-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 1/8] Documentation: Adding "The Perfect Patch" by Andrew Morton

[Ben Minerds]

 Adding Andrews advice on patch submission and subdirectory for further patch
 documentstion.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 .../patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt                  | 167 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 167 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b07074e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+From: Andrew Morton [email blocked]
+To: Mukker, Atul [email blocked]
+Subject: Re: [patch] 2.6.9-rc1-mm1: megaraid_mbox.c compile error with gcc 3.4
+Date: 	Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:04:19 -0700
+
+"Mukker, Atul" [email blocked] wrote:
+>
+> The driver and the patches with the re-ordered functions is available at
+>  ftp://ftp.lsil.com/pub/linux-megaraid/drivers/version-2.20.3.1/
+
+I dunno about James, but I *really* dislike receiving patches by going and
+getting them from internet servers.  It breaks our commonly-used tools.  It
+loses authorship info.  It loses Signed-off-by: info.  There is no
+changelog.  All this means that your patch is more likely to be ignored by
+busy people.  Please, just email the diffs.
+
+I wrote a little guide this week:
+
+
+
+The perfect patch. [email blocked]
+
+The latest version of this document may be found at
+http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt
+
+Delivery
+========
+
+- Patches are delivered via email only.  Downloading them from internet
+  servers is a pain.
+
+- One patch per email, with the changelog in the body of the email.
+
+Subject:
+========
+
+- The email's Subject: should consisely describe the patch which that email
+  contains.  The Subject: should not be a filename.  Do not use the same
+  Subject: for every patch in a whole patch series.
+
+  Bear in mind that the Subject: of your email becomes a globally-unique
+  identifier for that patch.  It propagates all the way into BitKeeper.  The
+  Subject: may later be used in developer discussions which refer to the
+  patch.  People will want to google for the patch's Subject: to read
+  discussion regarding that patch.
+
+- When sending a series of patches, the patches should be sequence-numbered
+  in the Subject:
+
+- It is nice if the Subject: includes mention of the subsystem which it
+  affects.  See example below.
+
+- Example Subject:
+
+	[patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
+
+- Note that various people's patch receiving scripts will strip away
+  Subject: text which is inside brackets [].  So you should place information
+  which has no long-term relevance to the patch inside brackets.  This
+  includes the word "patch" and any sequence numbering.  The subsystem
+  identifier ("ext2:") should hence be outside brackets.
+
+
+Changelog
+=========
+
+- Bear in mind that the Subject: and changelog which you provide will
+  propagate all the way into the permanent kernel record.  Other developers
+  will want to read and understand your patch and changelog years in the
+  future.
+
+  So the changelog should describe the patch fully:
+
+  - why the kernel needed patching
+
+  - the overall design approach in the patch
+
+  - implementation details
+
+  - testing results
+
+- Don't bother mentioning what version of the kernel the patch applies to
+  ("applies to 2.6.8-rc1").  This is not interesting information - once the
+  patch is in bitkeeper, of _course_ it applied, and it'll probably be merged
+  into a later kernel than the one which you wrote it for.
+
+- Do not refer to earlier patches when changelogging a new version of a
+  patch.  It's not very useful to have a bitkeeper changelog which says "OK,
+  this fixes the things you mentioned yesterday".  Each iteration of the patch
+  should contain a standalone changelog.  This implies that you need a patch
+  management system which maintains changelogs.  See below.
+
+- Add a Signed-off-by: line.
+
+- Most people's patch receiving scripts will treat a ^--- string as the
+  separator between the changelog and the patch itself.  You can use this to
+  ensure that any diffstat information is discarded when the patch is applied:
+
+
+
+	Another few #if/#ifdef cleanups, this time for the PPC architecture.
+
+	Signed-off-by: <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
+	Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [email blocked]
+	---
+
+	 25-akpm/arch/ppc/kernel/process.c                    |    2 +-
+	 25-akpm/arch/ppc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_cds_common.c |    2 +-
+	 25-akpm/arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_setup.c              |    4 ++--
+	 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
+
+	--- 25/arch/ppc/kernel/process.c
+	+++ 25/arch/ppc/kernel/process.c
+	@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ void show_stack(struct task_struct *tsk,
+
+
+The diff
+========
+
+- Patches should be in `patch -p1' form:
+
+  --- a/kernel/sched.c
+  +++ b/kernel/sched.c
+
+- Make sure that your patches apply to the latest version of the kernel
+  tree.  Either straight from bitkeeper or from
+  ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
+
+- When raising patches for -mm it's generally best to base them on the
+  latest Linus tree.  I'll work out any rejects/incompatibilities.  There are
+  of course exceptions to this.
+
+- Ensure that your patch does not add new trailing whitespace.  The below
+  script will fix up your patch by stripping off such whitespace.
+
+	#!/bin/sh
+
+	strip1()
+	{
+		TMP=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXXXX)
+		cp $1 $TMP
+		sed -e '/^+/s/[ 	]*$//' < $TMP > $1
+		rm $TMP
+	}
+
+	for i in $*
+	do
+		strip1 $i
+	done
+
+
+Overall
+=======
+
+- Avoid MIME and attachements if possible.  Make sure that your email client
+  does not wordwrap your patch.  Make sure that your email client does not
+  replace tabs with spaces.
+
+  Mail yourself a decent-sized patch and check that it still applies.
+
+
+
+The patch management scripts at http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/
+implement all of the above.
+
+The patch management tools at https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt/ also
+implement all of the above.
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 2/8] Documentation: Adding "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format"

[Ben Minerds]

 Adding "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format" reference to remove external
 dependancy.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 .../patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt            | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt b/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..44a1eb9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format
+====================================
+
+Most Linux kernel submissions are merged into the kernel source code repository by script. These instructions describe the proper format for emailed kernel patch submissions, to ensure that submittors and maintainers waste a minimum amount of time on these details.
+1. Email subject format
+
+The email subject has a precise format, communicating several pieces of information.
+
+[PATCH $version $n/$total] $subsystem: one-line summary
+
+    "[PATCH": constant prefix
+    $version: kernel version against which this patch was generated
+    $n/$total: when a change encompasses more than one patch, $n indicates the order of this patch in the series, and $total indicates the total number of patches in the series.
+    $subsystem: area of the kernel, or device driver, to which this patch applies.
+    one-line summary: summarizes the change this patch makes. This summary is copied directly into the SCM (i.e. git) changelog, so make sure that your summary is descriptive. Ensure that $subsystem uniquely identifies the subsystem or driver being modified. "update to latest CVS" or "fix bug in probe" is not specific enough about what portion of the code is being modified.
+    Keep your overall subject line under 65 characters or so.
+
+The scripts will strip all the text inside the brackets ("[PATCH ...]"), and replace it "[PATCH]".
+
+Example:
+
+	[PATCH 2.6.9-rc1-mm2 1/2] 8139cp: fix PCI DAC mode
+
+The "$n/$total" may be omitted if there is only one patch in the series. Writing "1/1" is not necessary.
+2. Email body contents: description
+
+At the beginning of your email, use as many lines as you wish to describe the patch. This text is copied directly into the SCM (i.e. git) changelog.
+
+Include comments and other data (such as diffstat) you don't wish to be in the kernel changelog following a "---" terminator line. The terminator must be on a line by itself.
+3. Email body contents: patch
+
+Sub-Rule Number One: Patches must be reviewable in a standard Linux email client. This means in particular, no compression and no base64 encoding. Attachments are discouraged, but some corporate mail systems provide no other way to send patches.
+
+Sub-Rule Number Two: Patch must be apply-able by a script that has no knowledge of [MIME] encoding. You must make sure your mailer does not escape standard US-ASCII characters, wrap long lines, or encode plaintext patches in base64 (or any other encoding).
+
+Sub-Rule Number Three: Patch must be rooted one level above a standard kernel source tree. i.e.
+
+     --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mm.c       2004-08-31 04:05:10 -04:00
+     +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mm.c       2004-08-31 04:05:10 -04:00
+
+or in other words, the patch must be apply-able using
+
+	patch -sp1 < foo.patch
+
+4. One patch per email
+
+This cannot be stressed enough. Even when you are resending a change for the 5th time, resist the urge to attach 20 patches to a single email. If you do send multiple emails, make sure the second and subsequent emails are sent as replies to the first, to keep them all together in a thread.
+5. Sign your work
+
+The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
+
+        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
+
+        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
+
+        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
+            have the right to submit it under the open source license
+            indicated in the file; or
+
+        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
+            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
+            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
+            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
+            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
+            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
+            in the file; or
+
+        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
+            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
+            it.
+
+        (d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
+            are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
+            personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
+            maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
+            this project or the open source license(s) involved.
+
+then you just add a line at the end of your patch description, saying
+
+        Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
+
+6. Avoid attachments and MIME
+
+Attachments make it more difficult to review and comment on your patches. MIME (the mechanism by which files are attached to an email) has historically created a problem for patch import scripts. Some unfortunate email programs insist upon base64 encoding for all attachments, which completely shrouds the patch to some scripts and mailers.
+7. Follow these instructions even when resending
+
+Quite often, when a patch receives comments, the patch author will (deep in an email thread) include a revised version of their patch but omit the email subject one-line summary, and overall patch description. This isn't script friendly, and requires the patch description to be hand-edited.
+
+For more details, read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and Documentation/SubmittingDrivers in the kernel source tree.
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 3/8] Documentation: Replacing references to broken perfect patch URL

[Ben Minerds]

 Replacing refs to broken URL with internal documentation reference.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/HOWTO                   | 4 ++--
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches       | 2 +-
 Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO             | 4 ++--
 Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
 Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO             | 4 ++--
 Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO             | 4 ++--
 Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches | 2 +-
 7 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/HOWTO b/Documentation/HOWTO
index a9f288f..11e597e 100644
--- a/Documentation/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/HOWTO
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ required reading:
 
     Other excellent descriptions of how to create patches properly are:
 	"The Perfect Patch"
-		http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+		Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 	"Linux kernel patch submission format"
 		http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
 
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ all time.  It should describe the patch completely, containing:
 For more details on what this should all look like, please see the
 ChangeLog section of the document:
   "The Perfect Patch"
-      http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+      Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 
 
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 6e97e73..d59975f 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
 ----------------------
 
 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
-  <http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
   <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
diff --git a/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO b/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO
index 050d37f..365262d 100644
--- a/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ linux-api@ver.kernel.org に送ることを勧めます。
      この他にパッチを作る方法についてのよくできた記述は-
 
 	"The Perfect Patch"
-		http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+		Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 	"Linux kernel patch submission format"
 		http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
 
@@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ Linux カーネルコミュニティは、一度に大量のコードの塊を
 これについて全てがどのようにあるべきかについての詳細は、以下のドキュメ
 ントの ChangeLog セクションを見てください-
   "The Perfect Patch"
-      http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+      Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 これらのどれもが、時にはとても困難です。これらの慣例を完璧に実施するに
 は数年かかるかもしれません。これは継続的な改善のプロセスであり、そのた
diff --git a/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches
index 97f78dd..b688892 100644
--- a/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches
@@ -695,7 +695,7 @@ gcc においては、マクロと同じくらい軽いです。
 ----------------------
 
 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
-  <http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
   <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
diff --git a/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO b/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO
index 2f48f20..18a6e61 100644
--- a/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ mtk.manpages@gmail.com의 메인테이너에게 보낼 것을 권장한다.
 
     올바른 패치들을 만드는 법에 관한 훌륭한 다른 문서들이 있다.
     "The Perfect Patch"
-        http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+        Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
     "Linux kernel patch submission format"
         http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
 
@@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ Pat이라는 이름을 가진 여자가 있을 수도 있는 것이다. 리눅
 
 이것이 무엇인지 더 자세한 것을 알고 싶다면 다음 문서의 ChageLog 항을 봐라.
    "The Perfect Patch"
-    http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+    Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 
 
diff --git a/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO b/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO
index 7fba5aa..a55c358 100644
--- a/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Linux内核代码中包含有大量的文档。这些文档对于学习如何与
 
     其他关于如何正确地生成补丁的优秀文档包括：
     "The Perfect Patch"
-        http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+        Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
     "Linux kernel patch submission format"
         http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
 
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ Linux内核社区并不喜欢一下接收大段的代码。修改需要被恰当
 
 想了解它具体应该看起来像什么，请查阅以下文档中的“ChangeLog”章节：
   “The Perfect Patch”
-  	 http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt
+  	 Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 
 这些事情有时候做起来很难。要在任何方面都做到完美可能需要好几年时间。这是
diff --git a/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches
index 0f4385a..779a065 100644
--- a/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ Static inline 函数相比宏来说，是好得多的选择。Static inline 函
 ----------------
 
 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
-  <http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
   <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 4/8] Documentation: Replacing reference to broken perfect patch URL

[Ben Minerds]

 Replacing ref to broken URL, in the "perfect patch" document.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
index b07074e..217a303 100644
--- a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ I wrote a little guide this week:
 
 The perfect patch. [email blocked]
 
-The latest version of this document may be found at
-http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt
+The latest version of this document may be found in:
+- Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Delivery
 ========
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 5/8] Documentation: Replacing reference to broken submission format URL

[Ben Minerds]

 Replacing refs to broken URL with internal documentation reference, and a
 little whitespace shuffle to keep it under 80 chars wide.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/HOWTO                   | 10 +++++-----
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches       |  2 +-
 Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO             |  8 ++++----
 Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches |  2 +-
 Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO             |  2 +-
 Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO             |  2 +-
 Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches |  2 +-
 7 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/HOWTO b/Documentation/HOWTO
index 11e597e..fba34c0 100644
--- a/Documentation/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/HOWTO
@@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ required reading:
     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"
-		Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
-	"Linux kernel patch submission format"
-		http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
+  Other excellent descriptions of how to create patches properly are:
+    "The Perfect Patch"
+      Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
+    "Linux kernel patch submission format"
+      Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
   Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
     This file describes the rationale behind the conscious decision to
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index d59975f..8cd0e1e 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
   Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
-  <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
 Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
   <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer.html>
diff --git a/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO b/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO
index 365262d..98a74a2 100644
--- a/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO
@@ -148,10 +148,10 @@ linux-api@ver.kernel.org に送ることを勧めます。
 
      この他にパッチを作る方法についてのよくできた記述は-
 
-	"The Perfect Patch"
-		Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
-	"Linux kernel patch submission format"
-		http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
+    "The Perfect Patch"
+      Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
+    "Linux kernel patch submission format"
+      Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
   Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
      このファイルはカーネルの中に不変のAPIを持たないことにした意識的な
diff --git a/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches
index b688892..e9b2cc5 100644
--- a/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches
@@ -698,7 +698,7 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
   Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
-  <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
 Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
   <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
diff --git a/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO b/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO
index 18a6e61..518497f 100644
--- a/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ mtk.manpages@gmail.com의 메인테이너에게 보낼 것을 권장한다.
     "The Perfect Patch"
         Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
     "Linux kernel patch submission format"
-        http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
+        Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
    Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
     이 문서는 의도적으로 커널이 불변하는 API를 갖지 않도록 결정한
diff --git a/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO b/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO
index a55c358..21860d1 100644
--- a/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO
+++ b/Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ Linux内核代码中包含有大量的文档。这些文档对于学习如何与
     "The Perfect Patch"
         Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
     "Linux kernel patch submission format"
-        http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
+        Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
   Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
     论证内核为什么特意不包括稳定的内核内部API，也就是说不包括像这样的特
diff --git a/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches
index 779a065..37e9303 100644
--- a/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches
@@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
   Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
 
 Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
-  <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html>
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
 
 Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
   <http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/03/31/>
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 6/8] Documentation: Updating a broken link in "the perfect patch"

[Ben Minerds]

 The link to Andrews patches were out of date. Replacing with new links. Also
 slightly reformatted to allow easier selection of links.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
index 217a303..63eccbb 100644
--- a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
@@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ Overall
 
 
 
-The patch management scripts at http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/
-implement all of the above.
+The patch management scripts here implement all of the above:
+  https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/
 
-The patch management tools at https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt/ also
-implement all of the above.
\ No newline at end of file
+The patch management tools here implement all of the above:
+  https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt/
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 7/8] Documentation: Reformatting "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format"

[Ben Minerds]

 Reformatted "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format", to wrap at 80 chars and
 underline headings.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 .../patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt            | 86 ++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt b/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
index 44a1eb9..5c86ef5 100644
--- a/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
@@ -1,39 +1,66 @@
 Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format
 ====================================
 
-Most Linux kernel submissions are merged into the kernel source code repository by script. These instructions describe the proper format for emailed kernel patch submissions, to ensure that submittors and maintainers waste a minimum amount of time on these details.
-1. Email subject format
+Most Linux kernel submissions are merged into the kernel source code repository
+by script. These instructions describe the proper format for emailed kernel
+patch submissions, to ensure that submittors and maintainers waste a minimum
+amount of time on these details.
 
-The email subject has a precise format, communicating several pieces of information.
+1. Email subject format
+=======================
+The email subject has a precise format, communicating several pieces of
+information.
 
 [PATCH $version $n/$total] $subsystem: one-line summary
 
     "[PATCH": constant prefix
     $version: kernel version against which this patch was generated
-    $n/$total: when a change encompasses more than one patch, $n indicates the order of this patch in the series, and $total indicates the total number of patches in the series.
-    $subsystem: area of the kernel, or device driver, to which this patch applies.
-    one-line summary: summarizes the change this patch makes. This summary is copied directly into the SCM (i.e. git) changelog, so make sure that your summary is descriptive. Ensure that $subsystem uniquely identifies the subsystem or driver being modified. "update to latest CVS" or "fix bug in probe" is not specific enough about what portion of the code is being modified.
+    $n/$total: when a change encompasses more than one patch, $n indicates the
+      order of this patch in the series, and $total indicates the total number
+      of patches in the series.
+    $subsystem: area of the kernel, or device driver, to which this
+      patch applies.
+    one-line summary: summarizes the change this patch makes. This summary is
+      copied directly into the SCM (i.e. git) changelog, so make sure that your
+      summary is descriptive. Ensure that $subsystem uniquely identifies the
+      subsystem or driver being modified. "update to latest CVS" or "fix bug in
+      probe" is not specific enough about what portion of the code is
+      being modified.
     Keep your overall subject line under 65 characters or so.
 
-The scripts will strip all the text inside the brackets ("[PATCH ...]"), and replace it "[PATCH]".
+The scripts will strip all the text inside the brackets ("[PATCH ...]"), and
+replace it "[PATCH]".
 
 Example:
 
 	[PATCH 2.6.9-rc1-mm2 1/2] 8139cp: fix PCI DAC mode
 
-The "$n/$total" may be omitted if there is only one patch in the series. Writing "1/1" is not necessary.
+The "$n/$total" may be omitted if there is only one patch in the series.
+Writing "1/1" is not necessary.
+
 2. Email body contents: description
+===================================
+At the beginning of your email, use as many lines as you wish to describe the
+patch. This text is copied directly into the SCM (i.e. git) changelog.
 
-At the beginning of your email, use as many lines as you wish to describe the patch. This text is copied directly into the SCM (i.e. git) changelog.
+Include comments and other data (such as diffstat) you don't wish to be in the
+kernel changelog following a "---" terminator line. The terminator must be on a
+line by itself.
 
-Include comments and other data (such as diffstat) you don't wish to be in the kernel changelog following a "---" terminator line. The terminator must be on a line by itself.
 3. Email body contents: patch
+=============================
+Sub-Rule Number One: Patches must be reviewable in a standard Linux email
+client. This means in particular, no compression and no base64 encoding.
+Attachments are discouraged, but some corporate mail systems provide no other
+way to send patches.
 
-Sub-Rule Number One: Patches must be reviewable in a standard Linux email client. This means in particular, no compression and no base64 encoding. Attachments are discouraged, but some corporate mail systems provide no other way to send patches.
-
-Sub-Rule Number Two: Patch must be apply-able by a script that has no knowledge of [MIME] encoding. You must make sure your mailer does not escape standard US-ASCII characters, wrap long lines, or encode plaintext patches in base64 (or any other encoding).
+Sub-Rule Number Two: Patch must be apply-able by a script that has no knowledge
+of [MIME] encoding. You must make sure your mailer does not escape standard
+US-ASCII characters, wrap long lines, or encode plaintext patches in base64 (or
+any other encoding).
 
-Sub-Rule Number Three: Patch must be rooted one level above a standard kernel source tree. i.e.
+Sub-Rule Number Three: Patch must be rooted one level above a standard kernel
+source tree. i.e.
 
      --- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mm.c       2004-08-31 04:05:10 -04:00
      +++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_mm.c       2004-08-31 04:05:10 -04:00
@@ -43,11 +70,17 @@ or in other words, the patch must be apply-able using
 	patch -sp1 < foo.patch
 
 4. One patch per email
+======================
+This cannot be stressed enough. Even when you are resending a change for the
+5th time, resist the urge to attach 20 patches to a single email. If you do
+send multiple emails, make sure the second and subsequent emails are sent as
+replies to the first, to keep them all together in a thread.
 
-This cannot be stressed enough. Even when you are resending a change for the 5th time, resist the urge to attach 20 patches to a single email. If you do send multiple emails, make sure the second and subsequent emails are sent as replies to the first, to keep them all together in a thread.
 5. Sign your work
-
-The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
+=================
+The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the patch,
+which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to pass it on as
+a open-source patch. The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:
 
         Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
 
@@ -80,10 +113,19 @@ then you just add a line at the end of your patch description, saying
         Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.org>
 
 6. Avoid attachments and MIME
+=============================
+Attachments make it more difficult to review and comment on your patches. MIME
+(the mechanism by which files are attached to an email) has historically
+created a problem for patch import scripts. Some unfortunate email programs
+insist upon base64 encoding for all attachments, which completely shrouds the
+patch to some scripts and mailers.
 
-Attachments make it more difficult to review and comment on your patches. MIME (the mechanism by which files are attached to an email) has historically created a problem for patch import scripts. Some unfortunate email programs insist upon base64 encoding for all attachments, which completely shrouds the patch to some scripts and mailers.
 7. Follow these instructions even when resending
-
-Quite often, when a patch receives comments, the patch author will (deep in an email thread) include a revised version of their patch but omit the email subject one-line summary, and overall patch description. This isn't script friendly, and requires the patch description to be hand-edited.
-
-For more details, read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and Documentation/SubmittingDrivers in the kernel source tree.
\ No newline at end of file
+================================================
+Quite often, when a patch receives comments, the patch author will (deep in an
+email thread) include a revised version of their patch but omit the email
+subject one-line summary, and overall patch description. This isn't script
+friendly, and requires the patch description to be hand-edited.
+
+For more details, read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and
+Documentation/SubmittingDrivers in the kernel source tree.
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 8/8] Documentation: Move other patch related document

[Ben Minerds]

 Moved a couple of other patch related documents into the
 development-process/patches directory: applying-patches.txt and
 SubmittingPatches.

 Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches                    | 743 ---------------------
 Documentation/applying-patches.txt                 | 454 -------------
 .../development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches  | 743 +++++++++++++++++++++
 .../patches/applying-patches.txt                   | 454 +++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 1197 insertions(+), 1197 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/SubmittingPatches
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/applying-patches.txt
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches
 create mode 100644 Documentation/development-process/patches/applying-patches.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
deleted file mode 100644
index 8cd0e1e..0000000
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,743 +0,0 @@
-
-	How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
-		or
-	Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds
-
-
-
-For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux
-kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar
-with "the system."  This text is a collection of suggestions which
-can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted.
-
-Read Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check
-before submitting code.  If you are submitting a driver, also read
-Documentation/SubmittingDrivers.
-
-
-
---------------------------------------------
-SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
---------------------------------------------
-
-
-
-1) "diff -up"
-------------
-
-Use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN" to create patches.
-
-All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
-generated by diff(1).  When creating your patch, make sure to create it
-in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1).
-Also, please use the '-p' argument which shows which C function each
-change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read.
-Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory,
-not in any lower subdirectory.
-
-To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
-
-	SRCTREE= linux-2.6
-	MYFILE=  drivers/net/mydriver.c
-
-	cd $SRCTREE
-	cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig
-	vi $MYFILE	# make your change
-	cd ..
-	diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch
-
-To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
-or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a diff against your
-own source tree.  For example:
-
-	MYSRC= /devel/linux-2.6
-
-	tar xvfz linux-2.6.12.tar.gz
-	mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-vanilla
-	diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.12-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
-		linux-2.6.12-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
-
-"dontdiff" is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
-the build process, and should be ignored in any diff(1)-generated
-patch.  The "dontdiff" file is included in the kernel tree in
-2.6.12 and later.
-
-Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
-belong in a patch submission.  Make sure to review your patch -after-
-generated it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy.
-
-If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you may want to look into
-splitting them into individual patches which modify things in
-logical stages.  This will facilitate easier reviewing by other
-kernel developers, very important if you want your patch accepted.
-There are a number of scripts which can aid in this:
-
-Quilt:
-http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt
-
-Andrew Morton's patch scripts:
-http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/patch-scripts.tar.gz
-Instead of these scripts, quilt is the recommended patch management
-tool (see above).
-
-
-
-2) Describe your changes.
-
-Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
-
-Be as specific as possible.  The WORST descriptions possible include
-things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
-includes updates for subsystem X.  Please apply."
-
-The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
-form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
-system, git, as a "commit log".  See #15, below.
-
-If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
-need to split up your patch.  See #3, next.
-
-When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
-complete patch description and justification for it.  Don't just
-say that this is version N of the patch (series).  Don't expect the
-patch merger to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
-URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
-I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
-This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers.  Some reviewers
-probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
-
-If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
-number and URL.
-
-
-3) Separate your changes.
-
-Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file.
-
-For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
-enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
-or more patches.  If your changes include an API update, and a new
-driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
-
-On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
-group those changes into a single patch.  Thus a single logical change
-is contained within a single patch.
-
-If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
-complete, that is OK.  Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
-in your patch description.
-
-If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
-then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
-
-
-
-4) Style check your changes.
-
-Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
-found in Documentation/CodingStyle.  Failure to do so simply wastes
-the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
-without even being read.
-
-At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style
-checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl).  You should
-be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch.
-
-
-
-5) Select e-mail destination.
-
-Look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code, and determine
-if your change applies to a specific subsystem of the kernel, with
-an assigned maintainer.  If so, e-mail that person.  The script
-scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step.
-
-If no maintainer is listed, or the maintainer does not respond, send
-your patch to the primary Linux kernel developer's mailing list,
-linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.  Most kernel developers monitor this
-e-mail list, and can comment on your changes.
-
-
-Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
-
-
-Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
-Linux kernel.  His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>. 
-He gets a lot of e-mail, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
-sending him e-mail. 
-
-Patches which are bug fixes, are "obvious" changes, or similarly
-require little discussion should be sent or CC'd to Linus.  Patches
-which require discussion or do not have a clear advantage should
-usually be sent first to linux-kernel.  Only after the patch is
-discussed should the patch then be submitted to Linus.
-
-
-
-6) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list.
-
-Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.
-
-Other kernel developers besides Linus need to be aware of your change,
-so that they may comment on it and offer code review and suggestions.
-linux-kernel is the primary Linux kernel developer mailing list.
-Other mailing lists are available for specific subsystems, such as
-USB, framebuffer devices, the VFS, the SCSI subsystem, etc.  See the
-MAINTAINERS file for a mailing list that relates specifically to
-your change.
-
-Majordomo lists of VGER.KERNEL.ORG at:
-	<http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html>
-
-If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send
-the MAN-PAGES maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file)
-a man-pages patch, or at least a notification of the change,
-so that some information makes its way into the manual pages.
-
-Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #5, make sure to ALWAYS
-copy the maintainer when you change their code.
-
-For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
-trivial@kernel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look
-into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager.
-Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
- Spelling fixes in documentation
- Spelling fixes which could break grep(1)
- Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
- Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
- Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
- Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region)
- Contact detail and documentation fixes
- Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific,
- since people copy, as long as it's trivial)
- Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
- in re-transmission mode)
-
-
-
-7) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
-
-Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
-on the changes you are submitting.  It is important for a kernel
-developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
-tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
-
-For this reason, all patches should be submitting e-mail "inline".
-WARNING:  Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
-if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
-
-Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
-Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
-attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your
-code.  A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
-decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
-
-Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
-you to re-send them using MIME.
-
-See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
-your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
-
-8) E-mail size.
-
-When sending patches to Linus, always follow step #7.
-
-Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
-maintainers.  If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
-it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
-server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.
-
-
-
-9) Name your kernel version.
-
-It is important to note, either in the subject line or in the patch
-description, the kernel version to which this patch applies.
-
-If the patch does not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version,
-Linus will not apply it.
-
-
-
-10) Don't get discouraged.  Re-submit.
-
-After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait.  If Linus
-likes your change and applies it, it will appear in the next version
-of the kernel that he releases.
-
-However, if your change doesn't appear in the next version of the
-kernel, there could be any number of reasons.  It's YOUR job to
-narrow down those reasons, correct what was wrong, and submit your
-updated change.
-
-It is quite common for Linus to "drop" your patch without comment.
-That's the nature of the system.  If he drops your patch, it could be
-due to
-* Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version.
-* Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on linux-kernel.
-* A style issue (see section 2).
-* An e-mail formatting issue (re-read this section).
-* A technical problem with your change.
-* He gets tons of e-mail, and yours got lost in the shuffle.
-* You are being annoying.
-
-When in doubt, solicit comments on linux-kernel mailing list.
-
-
-
-11) Include PATCH in the subject
-
-Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
-convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH].  This lets Linus
-and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other
-e-mail discussions.
-
-
-
-12) Sign your work
-
-To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
-percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
-layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
-patches that are being emailed around.
-
-The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
-patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
-pass it on as an open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
-can certify the below:
-
-        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
-
-        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
-
-        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
-            have the right to submit it under the open source license
-            indicated in the file; or
-
-        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
-            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
-            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
-            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
-            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
-            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
-            in the file; or
-
-        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
-            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
-            it.
-
-	(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
-	    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
-	    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
-	    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
-	    this project or the open source license(s) involved.
-
-then you just add a line saying
-
-	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
-
-using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
-
-Some people also put extra tags at the end.  They'll just be ignored for
-now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
-point out some special detail about the sign-off. 
-
-If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
-modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
-exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
-rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
-counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
-the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
-make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
-you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
-the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
-seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
-enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
-you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
-
-	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
-	[lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
-	Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
-
-This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
-want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
-and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
-can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
-which appears in the changelog.
-
-Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
-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.
-
-
-13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
-
-The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
-development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
-
-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.
-
-Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
-maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
-
-Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
-has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
-mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
-into an Acked-by:.
-
-Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
-For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
-one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
-the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgement should be used here.
-When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
-list archives.
-
-If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
-provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
-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
-
-
-14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by: and Suggested-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.  That said,
-if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
-inspired to help us again in the future.
-
-A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
-some environment) by the person named.  This tag informs maintainers that
-some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
-future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
-
-Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
-acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
-
-	Reviewer's statement of oversight
-
-	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
-
- 	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
-	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
-	     the mainline kernel.
-
-	 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
-	     have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
-	     with the submitter's response to my comments.
-
-	 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
-	     submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
-	     worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
-	     issues which would argue against its inclusion.
-
-	 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
-	     do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
-	     warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
-	     purpose or function properly in any given situation.
-
-A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
-appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
-technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
-offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
-reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
-done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
-understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
-increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
-
-A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
-named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this
-tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the
-idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our
-idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the
-future.
-
-
-15) The canonical patch format
-
-The canonical patch subject line is:
-
-    Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
-
-The canonical patch message body contains the following:
-
-  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
-
-  - An empty line.
-
-  - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
-    permanent changelog to describe this patch.
-
-  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
-    also go in the changelog.
-
-  - A marker line containing simply "---".
-
-  - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.
-
-  - The actual patch (diff output).
-
-The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails
-alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will
-support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded,
-the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same.
-
-The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which
-area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched.
-
-The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely
-describe the patch which that email contains.  The "summary
-phrase" should not be a filename.  Do not use the same "summary
-phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
-series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
-
-Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes a
-globally-unique identifier for that patch.  It propagates all the way
-into the git changelog.  The "summary phrase" may later be used in
-developer discussions which refer to the patch.  People will want to
-google for the "summary phrase" to read discussion regarding that
-patch.  It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
-when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps
-thousands of patches using tools such as "gitk" or "git log
---oneline".
-
-For these reasons, the "summary" must be no more than 70-75
-characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
-as why the patch might be necessary.  It is challenging to be both
-succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary
-should do.
-
-The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square
-brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>".  The tags are not
-considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
-should be treated.  Common tags might include a version descriptor if
-the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
-comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for
-comments.  If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
-patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4.  This assures
-that developers understand the order in which the patches should be
-applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in
-the patch series.
-
-A couple of example Subjects:
-
-    Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
-    Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
-
-The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
-and has the form:
-
-        From: Original Author <author@example.com>
-
-The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
-patch in the permanent changelog.  If the "from" line is missing,
-then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
-the patch author in the changelog.
-
-The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
-changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long
-since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might
-have led to this patch.  Including symptoms of the failure which the
-patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
-especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs
-looking for the applicable patch.  If a patch fixes a compile failure,
-it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just
-enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
-it.  As in the "summary phrase", it is important to be both succinct as
-well as descriptive.
-
-The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
-handling tools where the changelog message ends.
-
-One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for
-a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of
-inserted and deleted lines per file.  A diffstat is especially useful
-on bigger patches.  Other comments relevant only to the moment or the
-maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go
-here.  A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
-which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the
-patch.
-
-If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please
-use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from
-the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal
-space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
-
-See more details on the proper patch format in the following
-references.
-
-
-16) Sending "git pull" requests  (from Linus emails)
-
-Please write the git repo address and branch name alone on the same line
-so that I can't even by mistake pull from the wrong branch, and so
-that a triple-click just selects the whole thing.
-
-So the proper format is something along the lines of:
-
-	"Please pull from
-
-		git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
-
-	 to get these changes:"
-
-so that I don't have to hunt-and-peck for the address and inevitably
-get it wrong (actually, I've only gotten it wrong a few times, and
-checking against the diffstat tells me when I get it wrong, but I'm
-just a lot more comfortable when I don't have to "look for" the right
-thing to pull, and double-check that I have the right branch-name).
-
-
-Please use "git diff -M --stat --summary" to generate the diffstat:
-the -M enables rename detection, and the summary enables a summary of
-new/deleted or renamed files.
-
-With rename detection, the statistics are rather different [...]
-because git will notice that a fair number of the changes are renames.
-
------------------------------------
-SECTION 2 - HINTS, TIPS, AND TRICKS
------------------------------------
-
-This section lists many of the common "rules" associated with code
-submitted to the kernel.  There are always exceptions... but you must
-have a really good reason for doing so.  You could probably call this
-section Linus Computer Science 101.
-
-
-
-1) Read Documentation/CodingStyle
-
-Nuff said.  If your code deviates too much from this, it is likely
-to be rejected without further review, and without comment.
-
-One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
-another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in
-the same patch which moves it.  This clearly delineates the act of
-moving the code and your changes.  This greatly aids review of the
-actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
-the code itself.
-
-Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
-(scripts/checkpatch.pl).  The style checker should be viewed as
-a guide not as the final word.  If your code looks better with
-a violation then its probably best left alone.
-
-The checker reports at three levels:
- - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
- - WARNING: things requiring careful review
- - CHECK: things requiring thought
-
-You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
-patch.
-
-
-
-2) #ifdefs are ugly
-
-Code cluttered with ifdefs is difficult to read and maintain.  Don't do
-it.  Instead, put your ifdefs in a header, and conditionally define
-'static inline' functions, or macros, which are used in the code.
-Let the compiler optimize away the "no-op" case.
-
-Simple example, of poor code:
-
-	dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
-	if (!dev)
-		return -ENODEV;
-	#ifdef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
-	init_funky_net(dev);
-	#endif
-
-Cleaned-up example:
-
-(in header)
-	#ifndef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
-	static inline void init_funky_net (struct net_device *d) {}
-	#endif
-
-(in the code itself)
-	dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
-	if (!dev)
-		return -ENODEV;
-	init_funky_net(dev);
-
-
-
-3) 'static inline' is better than a macro
-
-Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
-They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
-limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
-
-Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
-suboptimal [there are a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
-or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
-string-izing].
-
-'static inline' is preferred over 'static __inline__', 'extern inline',
-and 'extern __inline__'.
-
-
-
-4) Don't over-design.
-
-Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not
-be useful:  "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler."
-
-
-
-----------------------
-SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
-----------------------
-
-Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
-  Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
-
-Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
-  Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
-
-Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
-  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer.html>
-  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-02.html>
-  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-03.html>
-  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-04.html>
-  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-05.html>
-
-NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
-  <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112112749912944&w=2>
-
-Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle:
-  <http://users.sosdg.org/~qiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle>
-
-Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format:
-  <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
-
-Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
-  Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in.
-  http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf
-
---
diff --git a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index a083ba3..0000000
--- a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,454 +0,0 @@
-
-	Applying Patches To The Linux Kernel
-	------------------------------------
-
-	Original by: Jesper Juhl, August 2005
-	Last update: 2006-01-05
-
-
-A frequently asked question on the Linux Kernel Mailing List is how to apply
-a patch to the kernel or, more specifically, what base kernel a patch for
-one of the many trees/branches should be applied to. Hopefully this document
-will explain this to you.
-
-In addition to explaining how to apply and revert patches, a brief
-description of the different kernel trees (and examples of how to apply
-their specific patches) is also provided.
-
-
-What is a patch?
----
- A patch is a small text document containing a delta of changes between two
-different versions of a source tree. Patches are created with the `diff'
-program.
-To correctly apply a patch you need to know what base it was generated from
-and what new version the patch will change the source tree into. These
-should both be present in the patch file metadata or be possible to deduce
-from the filename.
-
-
-How do I apply or revert a patch?
----
- You apply a patch with the `patch' program. The patch program reads a diff
-(or patch) file and makes the changes to the source tree described in it.
-
-Patches for the Linux kernel are generated relative to the parent directory
-holding the kernel source dir.
-
-This means that paths to files inside the patch file contain the name of the
-kernel source directories it was generated against (or some other directory
-names like "a/" and "b/").
-Since this is unlikely to match the name of the kernel source dir on your
-local machine (but is often useful info to see what version an otherwise
-unlabeled patch was generated against) you should change into your kernel
-source directory and then strip the first element of the path from filenames
-in the patch file when applying it (the -p1 argument to `patch' does this).
-
-To revert a previously applied patch, use the -R argument to patch.
-So, if you applied a patch like this:
-	patch -p1 < ../patch-x.y.z
-
-You can revert (undo) it like this:
-	patch -R -p1 < ../patch-x.y.z
-
-
-How do I feed a patch/diff file to `patch'?
----
- This (as usual with Linux and other UNIX like operating systems) can be
-done in several different ways.
-In all the examples below I feed the file (in uncompressed form) to patch
-via stdin using the following syntax:
-	patch -p1 < path/to/patch-x.y.z
-
-If you just want to be able to follow the examples below and don't want to
-know of more than one way to use patch, then you can stop reading this
-section here.
-
-Patch can also get the name of the file to use via the -i argument, like
-this:
-	patch -p1 -i path/to/patch-x.y.z
-
-If your patch file is compressed with gzip or bzip2 and you don't want to
-uncompress it before applying it, then you can feed it to patch like this
-instead:
-	zcat path/to/patch-x.y.z.gz | patch -p1
-	bzcat path/to/patch-x.y.z.bz2 | patch -p1
-
-If you wish to uncompress the patch file by hand first before applying it
-(what I assume you've done in the examples below), then you simply run
-gunzip or bunzip2 on the file -- like this:
-	gunzip patch-x.y.z.gz
-	bunzip2 patch-x.y.z.bz2
-
-Which will leave you with a plain text patch-x.y.z file that you can feed to
-patch via stdin or the -i argument, as you prefer.
-
-A few other nice arguments for patch are -s which causes patch to be silent
-except for errors which is nice to prevent errors from scrolling out of the
-screen too fast, and --dry-run which causes patch to just print a listing of
-what would happen, but doesn't actually make any changes. Finally --verbose
-tells patch to print more information about the work being done.
-
-
-Common errors when patching
----
- When patch applies a patch file it attempts to verify the sanity of the
-file in different ways.
-Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file & checking the code
-around the bits being modified matches the context provided in the patch are
-just two of the basic sanity checks patch does.
-
-If patch encounters something that doesn't look quite right it has two
-options. It can either refuse to apply the changes and abort or it can try
-to find a way to make the patch apply with a few minor changes.
-
-One example of something that's not 'quite right' that patch will attempt to
-fix up is if all the context matches, the lines being changed match, but the
-line numbers are different. This can happen, for example, if the patch makes
-a change in the middle of the file but for some reasons a few lines have
-been added or removed near the beginning of the file. In that case
-everything looks good it has just moved up or down a bit, and patch will
-usually adjust the line numbers and apply the patch.
-
-Whenever patch applies a patch that it had to modify a bit to make it fit
-it'll tell you about it by saying the patch applied with 'fuzz'.
-You should be wary of such changes since even though patch probably got it
-right it doesn't /always/ get it right, and the result will sometimes be
-wrong.
-
-When patch encounters a change that it can't fix up with fuzz it rejects it
-outright and leaves a file with a .rej extension (a reject file). You can
-read this file to see exactly what change couldn't be applied, so you can
-go fix it up by hand if you wish.
-
-If you don't have any third-party patches applied to your kernel source, but
-only patches from kernel.org and you apply the patches in the correct order,
-and have made no modifications yourself to the source files, then you should
-never see a fuzz or reject message from patch. If you do see such messages
-anyway, then there's a high risk that either your local source tree or the
-patch file is corrupted in some way. In that case you should probably try
-re-downloading the patch and if things are still not OK then you'd be advised
-to start with a fresh tree downloaded in full from kernel.org.
-
-Let's look a bit more at some of the messages patch can produce.
-
-If patch stops and presents a "File to patch:" prompt, then patch could not
-find a file to be patched. Most likely you forgot to specify -p1 or you are
-in the wrong directory. Less often, you'll find patches that need to be
-applied with -p0 instead of -p1 (reading the patch file should reveal if
-this is the case -- if so, then this is an error by the person who created
-the patch but is not fatal).
-
-If you get "Hunk #2 succeeded at 1887 with fuzz 2 (offset 7 lines)." or a
-message similar to that, then it means that patch had to adjust the location
-of the change (in this example it needed to move 7 lines from where it
-expected to make the change to make it fit).
-The resulting file may or may not be OK, depending on the reason the file
-was different than expected.
-This often happens if you try to apply a patch that was generated against a
-different kernel version than the one you are trying to patch.
-
-If you get a message like "Hunk #3 FAILED at 2387.", then it means that the
-patch could not be applied correctly and the patch program was unable to
-fuzz its way through. This will generate a .rej file with the change that
-caused the patch to fail and also a .orig file showing you the original
-content that couldn't be changed.
-
-If you get "Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n]"
-then patch detected that the change contained in the patch seems to have
-already been made.
-If you actually did apply this patch previously and you just re-applied it
-in error, then just say [n]o and abort this patch. If you applied this patch
-previously and actually intended to revert it, but forgot to specify -R,
-then you can say [y]es here to make patch revert it for you.
-This can also happen if the creator of the patch reversed the source and
-destination directories when creating the patch, and in that case reverting
-the patch will in fact apply it.
-
-A message similar to "patch: **** unexpected end of file in patch" or "patch
-unexpectedly ends in middle of line" means that patch could make no sense of
-the file you fed to it. Either your download is broken, you tried to feed
-patch a compressed patch file without uncompressing it first, or the patch
-file that you are using has been mangled by a mail client or mail transfer
-agent along the way somewhere, e.g., by splitting a long line into two lines.
-Often these warnings can easily be fixed by joining (concatenating) the
-two lines that had been split.
-
-As I already mentioned above, these errors should never happen if you apply
-a patch from kernel.org to the correct version of an unmodified source tree.
-So if you get these errors with kernel.org patches then you should probably
-assume that either your patch file or your tree is broken and I'd advise you
-to start over with a fresh download of a full kernel tree and the patch you
-wish to apply.
-
-
-Are there any alternatives to `patch'?
----
- Yes there are alternatives.
-
- You can use the `interdiff' program (http://cyberelk.net/tim/patchutils/) to
-generate a patch representing the differences between two patches and then
-apply the result.
-This will let you move from something like 2.6.12.2 to 2.6.12.3 in a single
-step. The -z flag to interdiff will even let you feed it patches in gzip or
-bzip2 compressed form directly without the use of zcat or bzcat or manual
-decompression.
-
-Here's how you'd go from 2.6.12.2 to 2.6.12.3 in a single step:
-	interdiff -z ../patch-2.6.12.2.bz2 ../patch-2.6.12.3.gz | patch -p1
-
-Although interdiff may save you a step or two you are generally advised to
-do the additional steps since interdiff can get things wrong in some cases.
-
- Another alternative is `ketchup', which is a python script for automatic
-downloading and applying of patches (http://www.selenic.com/ketchup/).
-
- Other nice tools are diffstat, which shows a summary of changes made by a
-patch; lsdiff, which displays a short listing of affected files in a patch
-file, along with (optionally) the line numbers of the start of each patch;
-and grepdiff, which displays a list of the files modified by a patch where
-the patch contains a given regular expression.
-
-
-Where can I download the patches?
----
- The patches are available at http://kernel.org/
-Most recent patches are linked from the front page, but they also have
-specific homes.
-
-The 2.6.x.y (-stable) and 2.6.x patches live at
- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
-
-The -rc patches live at
- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/
-
-The -git patches live at
- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
-
-The -mm kernels live at
- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/
-
-In place of ftp.kernel.org you can use ftp.cc.kernel.org, where cc is a
-country code. This way you'll be downloading from a mirror site that's most
-likely geographically closer to you, resulting in faster downloads for you,
-less bandwidth used globally and less load on the main kernel.org servers --
-these are good things, so do use mirrors when possible.
-
-
-The 2.6.x kernels
----
- These are the base stable releases released by Linus. The highest numbered
-release is the most recent.
-
-If regressions or other serious flaws are found, then a -stable fix patch
-will be released (see below) on top of this base. Once a new 2.6.x base
-kernel is released, a patch is made available that is a delta between the
-previous 2.6.x kernel and the new one.
-
-To apply a patch moving from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12, you'd do the following (note
-that such patches do *NOT* apply on top of 2.6.x.y kernels but on top of the
-base 2.6.x kernel -- if you need to move from 2.6.x.y to 2.6.x+1 you need to
-first revert the 2.6.x.y patch).
-
-Here are some examples:
-
-# moving from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.11			# change to kernel source dir
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12		# apply the 2.6.12 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.11 linux-2.6.12		# rename source dir
-
-# moving from 2.6.11.1 to 2.6.12
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.11.1			# change to kernel source dir
-$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.11.1	# revert the 2.6.11.1 patch
-					# source dir is now 2.6.11
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12		# apply new 2.6.12 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.11.1 linux-2.6.12		# rename source dir
-
-
-The 2.6.x.y kernels
----
- Kernels with 4-digit versions are -stable kernels. They contain small(ish)
-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.
-
- note: the -stable team usually do make incremental patches available as well
- as patches against the latest mainline release, but I only cover the
- non-incremental ones below. The incremental ones can be found at
- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/incr/
-
-These patches are not incremental, meaning that for example the 2.6.12.3
-patch does not apply on top of the 2.6.12.2 kernel source, but rather on top
-of the base 2.6.12 kernel source .
-So, in order to apply the 2.6.12.3 patch to your existing 2.6.12.2 kernel
-source you have to first back out the 2.6.12.2 patch (so you are left with a
-base 2.6.12 kernel source) and then apply the new 2.6.12.3 patch.
-
-Here's a small example:
-
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12.2			# change into the kernel source dir
-$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.12.2	# revert the 2.6.12.2 patch
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12.3		# apply the new 2.6.12.3 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12.2 linux-2.6.12.3	# rename the kernel source dir
-
-
-The -rc kernels
----
- These are release-candidate kernels. These are development kernels released
-by Linus whenever he deems the current git (the kernel's source management
-tool) tree to be in a reasonably sane state adequate for testing.
-
-These kernels are not stable and you should expect occasional breakage if
-you intend to run them. This is however the most stable of the main
-development branches and is also what will eventually turn into the next
-stable kernel, so it is important that it be tested by as many people as
-possible.
-
-This is a good branch to run for people who want to help out testing
-development kernels but do not want to run some of the really experimental
-stuff (such people should see the sections about -git and -mm kernels below).
-
-The -rc patches are not incremental, they apply to a base 2.6.x kernel, just
-like the 2.6.x.y patches described above. The kernel version before the -rcN
-suffix denotes the version of the kernel that this -rc kernel will eventually
-turn into.
-So, 2.6.13-rc5 means that this is the fifth release candidate for the 2.6.13
-kernel and the patch should be applied on top of the 2.6.12 kernel source.
-
-Here are 3 examples of how to apply these patches:
-
-# first an example of moving from 2.6.12 to 2.6.13-rc3
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12			# change into the 2.6.12 source dir
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc3	# apply the 2.6.13-rc3 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.13-rc3	# rename the source dir
-
-# now let's move from 2.6.13-rc3 to 2.6.13-rc5
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.13-rc3			# change into the 2.6.13-rc3 dir
-$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.13-rc3	# revert the 2.6.13-rc3 patch
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc5	# apply the new 2.6.13-rc5 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.13-rc3 linux-2.6.13-rc5	# rename the source dir
-
-# finally let's try and move from 2.6.12.3 to 2.6.13-rc5
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12.3			# change to the kernel source dir
-$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.12.3	# revert the 2.6.12.3 patch
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc5	# apply new 2.6.13-rc5 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12.3 linux-2.6.13-rc5	# rename the kernel source dir
-
-
-The -git kernels
----
- These are daily snapshots of Linus' kernel tree (managed in a git
-repository, hence the name).
-
-These patches are usually released daily and represent the current state of
-Linus's tree. They are more experimental than -rc kernels since they are
-generated automatically without even a cursory glance to see if they are
-sane.
-
--git patches are not incremental and apply either to a base 2.6.x kernel or
-a base 2.6.x-rc kernel -- you can see which from their name.
-A patch named 2.6.12-git1 applies to the 2.6.12 kernel source and a patch
-named 2.6.13-rc3-git2 applies to the source of the 2.6.13-rc3 kernel.
-
-Here are some examples of how to apply these patches:
-
-# moving from 2.6.12 to 2.6.12-git1
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12			# change to the kernel source dir
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12-git1	# apply the 2.6.12-git1 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-git1	# rename the kernel source dir
-
-# moving from 2.6.12-git1 to 2.6.13-rc2-git3
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12-git1		# change to the kernel source dir
-$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.12-git1	# revert the 2.6.12-git1 patch
-					# we now have a 2.6.12 kernel
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc2	# apply the 2.6.13-rc2 patch
-					# the kernel is now 2.6.13-rc2
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc2-git3	# apply the 2.6.13-rc2-git3 patch
-					# the kernel is now 2.6.13-rc2-git3
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12-git1 linux-2.6.13-rc2-git3	# rename source dir
-
-
-The -mm kernels
----
- These are experimental kernels released by Andrew Morton.
-
-The -mm tree serves as a sort of proving ground for new features and other
-experimental patches.
-Once a patch has proved its worth in -mm for a while Andrew pushes it on to
-Linus for inclusion in mainline.
-
-Although it's encouraged that patches flow to Linus via the -mm tree, this
-is not always enforced.
-Subsystem maintainers (or individuals) sometimes push their patches directly
-to Linus, even though (or after) they have been merged and tested in -mm (or
-sometimes even without prior testing in -mm).
-
-You should generally strive to get your patches into mainline via -mm to
-ensure maximum testing.
-
-This branch is in constant flux and contains many experimental features, a
-lot of debugging patches not appropriate for mainline etc., and is the most
-experimental of the branches described in this document.
-
-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 (make
-sure you have up-to-date backups -- that goes for any experimental kernel but
-even more so for -mm kernels).
-
-These kernels in addition to all the other experimental patches they contain
-usually also contain any changes in the mainline -git kernels available at
-the time of release.
-
-Testing of -mm kernels is greatly appreciated since the whole point of the
-tree is to weed out regressions, crashes, data corruption bugs, build
-breakage (and any other bug in general) before changes are merged into the
-more stable mainline Linus tree.
-But testers of -mm should be aware that breakage in this tree is more common
-than in any other tree.
-
-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).
-The -mm kernels apply to either a base 2.6.x kernel (when no -rc kernels
-have been released yet) or to a Linus -rc kernel.
-
-Here are some examples of applying the -mm patches:
-
-# moving from 2.6.12 to 2.6.12-mm1
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12			# change to the 2.6.12 source dir
-$ patch -p1 < ../2.6.12-mm1		# apply the 2.6.12-mm1 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-mm1	# rename the source appropriately
-
-# moving from 2.6.12-mm1 to 2.6.13-rc3-mm3
-$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12-mm1
-$ patch -p1 -R < ../2.6.12-mm1		# revert the 2.6.12-mm1 patch
-					# we now have a 2.6.12 source
-$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc3	# apply the 2.6.13-rc3 patch
-					# we now have a 2.6.13-rc3 source
-$ patch -p1 < ../2.6.13-rc3-mm3		# apply the 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 patch
-$ cd ..
-$ mv linux-2.6.12-mm1 linux-2.6.13-rc3-mm3	# rename the source dir
-
-
-This concludes this list of explanations of the various kernel trees.
-I hope you are now clear on how to apply the various patches and help testing
-the kernel.
-
-Thank you's to Randy Dunlap, Rolf Eike Beer, Linus Torvalds, Bodo Eggert,
-Johannes Stezenbach, Grant Coady, Pavel Machek and others that I may have
-forgotten for their reviews and contributions to this document.
-
diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8cd0e1e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/SubmittingPatches
@@ -0,0 +1,743 @@
+
+	How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
+		or
+	Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds
+
+
+
+For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux
+kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar
+with "the system."  This text is a collection of suggestions which
+can greatly increase the chances of your change being accepted.
+
+Read Documentation/SubmitChecklist for a list of items to check
+before submitting code.  If you are submitting a driver, also read
+Documentation/SubmittingDrivers.
+
+
+
+--------------------------------------------
+SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
+--------------------------------------------
+
+
+
+1) "diff -up"
+------------
+
+Use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN" to create patches.
+
+All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
+generated by diff(1).  When creating your patch, make sure to create it
+in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1).
+Also, please use the '-p' argument which shows which C function each
+change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read.
+Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory,
+not in any lower subdirectory.
+
+To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
+
+	SRCTREE= linux-2.6
+	MYFILE=  drivers/net/mydriver.c
+
+	cd $SRCTREE
+	cp $MYFILE $MYFILE.orig
+	vi $MYFILE	# make your change
+	cd ..
+	diff -up $SRCTREE/$MYFILE{.orig,} > /tmp/patch
+
+To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
+or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a diff against your
+own source tree.  For example:
+
+	MYSRC= /devel/linux-2.6
+
+	tar xvfz linux-2.6.12.tar.gz
+	mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-vanilla
+	diff -uprN -X linux-2.6.12-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
+		linux-2.6.12-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
+
+"dontdiff" is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
+the build process, and should be ignored in any diff(1)-generated
+patch.  The "dontdiff" file is included in the kernel tree in
+2.6.12 and later.
+
+Make sure your patch does not include any extra files which do not
+belong in a patch submission.  Make sure to review your patch -after-
+generated it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy.
+
+If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you may want to look into
+splitting them into individual patches which modify things in
+logical stages.  This will facilitate easier reviewing by other
+kernel developers, very important if you want your patch accepted.
+There are a number of scripts which can aid in this:
+
+Quilt:
+http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt
+
+Andrew Morton's patch scripts:
+http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/patch-scripts.tar.gz
+Instead of these scripts, quilt is the recommended patch management
+tool (see above).
+
+
+
+2) Describe your changes.
+
+Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
+
+Be as specific as possible.  The WORST descriptions possible include
+things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
+includes updates for subsystem X.  Please apply."
+
+The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
+form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
+system, git, as a "commit log".  See #15, below.
+
+If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
+need to split up your patch.  See #3, next.
+
+When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
+complete patch description and justification for it.  Don't just
+say that this is version N of the patch (series).  Don't expect the
+patch merger to refer back to earlier patch versions or referenced
+URLs to find the patch description and put that into the patch.
+I.e., the patch (series) and its description should be self-contained.
+This benefits both the patch merger(s) and reviewers.  Some reviewers
+probably didn't even receive earlier versions of the patch.
+
+If the patch fixes a logged bug entry, refer to that bug entry by
+number and URL.
+
+
+3) Separate your changes.
+
+Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file.
+
+For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
+enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
+or more patches.  If your changes include an API update, and a new
+driver which uses that new API, separate those into two patches.
+
+On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
+group those changes into a single patch.  Thus a single logical change
+is contained within a single patch.
+
+If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
+complete, that is OK.  Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
+in your patch description.
+
+If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches,
+then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
+
+
+
+4) Style check your changes.
+
+Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
+found in Documentation/CodingStyle.  Failure to do so simply wastes
+the reviewers time and will get your patch rejected, probably
+without even being read.
+
+At a minimum you should check your patches with the patch style
+checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl).  You should
+be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch.
+
+
+
+5) Select e-mail destination.
+
+Look through the MAINTAINERS file and the source code, and determine
+if your change applies to a specific subsystem of the kernel, with
+an assigned maintainer.  If so, e-mail that person.  The script
+scripts/get_maintainer.pl can be very useful at this step.
+
+If no maintainer is listed, or the maintainer does not respond, send
+your patch to the primary Linux kernel developer's mailing list,
+linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.  Most kernel developers monitor this
+e-mail list, and can comment on your changes.
+
+
+Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing lists!!!
+
+
+Linus Torvalds is the final arbiter of all changes accepted into the
+Linux kernel.  His e-mail address is <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>. 
+He gets a lot of e-mail, so typically you should do your best to -avoid-
+sending him e-mail. 
+
+Patches which are bug fixes, are "obvious" changes, or similarly
+require little discussion should be sent or CC'd to Linus.  Patches
+which require discussion or do not have a clear advantage should
+usually be sent first to linux-kernel.  Only after the patch is
+discussed should the patch then be submitted to Linus.
+
+
+
+6) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list.
+
+Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.
+
+Other kernel developers besides Linus need to be aware of your change,
+so that they may comment on it and offer code review and suggestions.
+linux-kernel is the primary Linux kernel developer mailing list.
+Other mailing lists are available for specific subsystems, such as
+USB, framebuffer devices, the VFS, the SCSI subsystem, etc.  See the
+MAINTAINERS file for a mailing list that relates specifically to
+your change.
+
+Majordomo lists of VGER.KERNEL.ORG at:
+	<http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html>
+
+If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send
+the MAN-PAGES maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file)
+a man-pages patch, or at least a notification of the change,
+so that some information makes its way into the manual pages.
+
+Even if the maintainer did not respond in step #5, make sure to ALWAYS
+copy the maintainer when you change their code.
+
+For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
+trivial@kernel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look
+into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager.
+Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
+ Spelling fixes in documentation
+ Spelling fixes which could break grep(1)
+ Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
+ Compilation fixes (only if they are actually correct)
+ Runtime fixes (only if they actually fix things)
+ Removing use of deprecated functions/macros (eg. check_region)
+ Contact detail and documentation fixes
+ Non-portable code replaced by portable code (even in arch-specific,
+ since people copy, as long as it's trivial)
+ Any fix by the author/maintainer of the file (ie. patch monkey
+ in re-transmission mode)
+
+
+
+7) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
+
+Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
+on the changes you are submitting.  It is important for a kernel
+developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard e-mail
+tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
+
+For this reason, all patches should be submitting e-mail "inline".
+WARNING:  Be wary of your editor's word-wrap corrupting your patch,
+if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
+
+Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not.
+Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME
+attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your
+code.  A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process,
+decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
+
+Exception:  If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
+you to re-send them using MIME.
+
+See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
+your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
+
+8) E-mail size.
+
+When sending patches to Linus, always follow step #7.
+
+Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
+maintainers.  If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
+it is preferred that you store your patch on an Internet-accessible
+server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.
+
+
+
+9) Name your kernel version.
+
+It is important to note, either in the subject line or in the patch
+description, the kernel version to which this patch applies.
+
+If the patch does not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version,
+Linus will not apply it.
+
+
+
+10) Don't get discouraged.  Re-submit.
+
+After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait.  If Linus
+likes your change and applies it, it will appear in the next version
+of the kernel that he releases.
+
+However, if your change doesn't appear in the next version of the
+kernel, there could be any number of reasons.  It's YOUR job to
+narrow down those reasons, correct what was wrong, and submit your
+updated change.
+
+It is quite common for Linus to "drop" your patch without comment.
+That's the nature of the system.  If he drops your patch, it could be
+due to
+* Your patch did not apply cleanly to the latest kernel version.
+* Your patch was not sufficiently discussed on linux-kernel.
+* A style issue (see section 2).
+* An e-mail formatting issue (re-read this section).
+* A technical problem with your change.
+* He gets tons of e-mail, and yours got lost in the shuffle.
+* You are being annoying.
+
+When in doubt, solicit comments on linux-kernel mailing list.
+
+
+
+11) Include PATCH in the subject
+
+Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
+convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH].  This lets Linus
+and other kernel developers more easily distinguish patches from other
+e-mail discussions.
+
+
+
+12) Sign your work
+
+To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
+percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
+layers of maintainers, we've introduced a "sign-off" procedure on
+patches that are being emailed around.
+
+The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
+patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
+pass it on as an open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
+can certify the below:
+
+        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
+
+        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
+
+        (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
+            have the right to submit it under the open source license
+            indicated in the file; or
+
+        (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
+            of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
+            license and I have the right under that license to submit that
+            work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
+            by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
+            permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
+            in the file; or
+
+        (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
+            person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
+            it.
+
+	(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
+	    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
+	    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
+	    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
+	    this project or the open source license(s) involved.
+
+then you just add a line saying
+
+	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
+
+using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
+
+Some people also put extra tags at the end.  They'll just be ignored for
+now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
+point out some special detail about the sign-off. 
+
+If you are a subsystem or branch maintainer, sometimes you need to slightly
+modify patches you receive in order to merge them, because the code is not
+exactly the same in your tree and the submitters'. If you stick strictly to
+rule (c), you should ask the submitter to rediff, but this is a totally
+counter-productive waste of time and energy. Rule (b) allows you to adjust
+the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and
+make him endorse your bugs. To solve this problem, it is recommended that
+you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
+the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
+seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
+enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
+you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
+
+	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
+	[lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
+	Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>
+
+This practise is particularly helpful if you maintain a stable branch and
+want at the same time to credit the author, track changes, merge the fix,
+and protect the submitter from complaints. Note that under no circumstances
+can you change the author's identity (the From header), as it is the one
+which appears in the changelog.
+
+Special note to back-porters: It seems to be a common and useful practise
+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.
+
+
+13) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
+
+The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
+development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
+
+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.
+
+Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that
+maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch.
+
+Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
+has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
+mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
+into an Acked-by:.
+
+Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch.
+For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from
+one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just
+the part which affects that maintainer's code.  Judgement should be used here.
+When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
+list archives.
+
+If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
+provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
+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
+
+
+14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by: and Suggested-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.  That said,
+if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
+inspired to help us again in the future.
+
+A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
+some environment) by the person named.  This tag informs maintainers that
+some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
+future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
+
+Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
+acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
+
+	Reviewer's statement of oversight
+
+	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
+
+ 	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
+	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
+	     the mainline kernel.
+
+	 (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch
+	     have been communicated back to the submitter.  I am satisfied
+	     with the submitter's response to my comments.
+
+	 (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this
+	     submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a
+	     worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known
+	     issues which would argue against its inclusion.
+
+	 (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I
+	     do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any
+	     warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated
+	     purpose or function properly in any given situation.
+
+A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
+appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious
+technical issues.  Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can
+offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
+reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
+done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
+understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
+increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
+
+A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
+named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this
+tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the
+idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our
+idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the
+future.
+
+
+15) The canonical patch format
+
+The canonical patch subject line is:
+
+    Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
+
+The canonical patch message body contains the following:
+
+  - A "from" line specifying the patch author.
+
+  - An empty line.
+
+  - The body of the explanation, which will be copied to the
+    permanent changelog to describe this patch.
+
+  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
+    also go in the changelog.
+
+  - A marker line containing simply "---".
+
+  - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.
+
+  - The actual patch (diff output).
+
+The Subject line format makes it very easy to sort the emails
+alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will
+support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded,
+the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same.
+
+The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which
+area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched.
+
+The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely
+describe the patch which that email contains.  The "summary
+phrase" should not be a filename.  Do not use the same "summary
+phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
+series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
+
+Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes a
+globally-unique identifier for that patch.  It propagates all the way
+into the git changelog.  The "summary phrase" may later be used in
+developer discussions which refer to the patch.  People will want to
+google for the "summary phrase" to read discussion regarding that
+patch.  It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
+when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps
+thousands of patches using tools such as "gitk" or "git log
+--oneline".
+
+For these reasons, the "summary" must be no more than 70-75
+characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
+as why the patch might be necessary.  It is challenging to be both
+succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary
+should do.
+
+The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square
+brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>".  The tags are not
+considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
+should be treated.  Common tags might include a version descriptor if
+the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
+comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for
+comments.  If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
+patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4.  This assures
+that developers understand the order in which the patches should be
+applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in
+the patch series.
+
+A couple of example Subjects:
+
+    Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
+    Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
+
+The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
+and has the form:
+
+        From: Original Author <author@example.com>
+
+The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
+patch in the permanent changelog.  If the "from" line is missing,
+then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
+the patch author in the changelog.
+
+The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
+changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long
+since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might
+have led to this patch.  Including symptoms of the failure which the
+patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
+especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs
+looking for the applicable patch.  If a patch fixes a compile failure,
+it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just
+enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
+it.  As in the "summary phrase", it is important to be both succinct as
+well as descriptive.
+
+The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
+handling tools where the changelog message ends.
+
+One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for
+a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of
+inserted and deleted lines per file.  A diffstat is especially useful
+on bigger patches.  Other comments relevant only to the moment or the
+maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go
+here.  A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
+which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the
+patch.
+
+If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please
+use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from
+the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal
+space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
+
+See more details on the proper patch format in the following
+references.
+
+
+16) Sending "git pull" requests  (from Linus emails)
+
+Please write the git repo address and branch name alone on the same line
+so that I can't even by mistake pull from the wrong branch, and so
+that a triple-click just selects the whole thing.
+
+So the proper format is something along the lines of:
+
+	"Please pull from
+
+		git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
+
+	 to get these changes:"
+
+so that I don't have to hunt-and-peck for the address and inevitably
+get it wrong (actually, I've only gotten it wrong a few times, and
+checking against the diffstat tells me when I get it wrong, but I'm
+just a lot more comfortable when I don't have to "look for" the right
+thing to pull, and double-check that I have the right branch-name).
+
+
+Please use "git diff -M --stat --summary" to generate the diffstat:
+the -M enables rename detection, and the summary enables a summary of
+new/deleted or renamed files.
+
+With rename detection, the statistics are rather different [...]
+because git will notice that a fair number of the changes are renames.
+
+-----------------------------------
+SECTION 2 - HINTS, TIPS, AND TRICKS
+-----------------------------------
+
+This section lists many of the common "rules" associated with code
+submitted to the kernel.  There are always exceptions... but you must
+have a really good reason for doing so.  You could probably call this
+section Linus Computer Science 101.
+
+
+
+1) Read Documentation/CodingStyle
+
+Nuff said.  If your code deviates too much from this, it is likely
+to be rejected without further review, and without comment.
+
+One significant exception is when moving code from one file to
+another -- in this case you should not modify the moved code at all in
+the same patch which moves it.  This clearly delineates the act of
+moving the code and your changes.  This greatly aids review of the
+actual differences and allows tools to better track the history of
+the code itself.
+
+Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
+(scripts/checkpatch.pl).  The style checker should be viewed as
+a guide not as the final word.  If your code looks better with
+a violation then its probably best left alone.
+
+The checker reports at three levels:
+ - ERROR: things that are very likely to be wrong
+ - WARNING: things requiring careful review
+ - CHECK: things requiring thought
+
+You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
+patch.
+
+
+
+2) #ifdefs are ugly
+
+Code cluttered with ifdefs is difficult to read and maintain.  Don't do
+it.  Instead, put your ifdefs in a header, and conditionally define
+'static inline' functions, or macros, which are used in the code.
+Let the compiler optimize away the "no-op" case.
+
+Simple example, of poor code:
+
+	dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
+	if (!dev)
+		return -ENODEV;
+	#ifdef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
+	init_funky_net(dev);
+	#endif
+
+Cleaned-up example:
+
+(in header)
+	#ifndef CONFIG_NET_FUNKINESS
+	static inline void init_funky_net (struct net_device *d) {}
+	#endif
+
+(in the code itself)
+	dev = alloc_etherdev (sizeof(struct funky_private));
+	if (!dev)
+		return -ENODEV;
+	init_funky_net(dev);
+
+
+
+3) 'static inline' is better than a macro
+
+Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
+They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
+limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
+
+Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
+suboptimal [there are a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
+or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
+string-izing].
+
+'static inline' is preferred over 'static __inline__', 'extern inline',
+and 'extern __inline__'.
+
+
+
+4) Don't over-design.
+
+Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not
+be useful:  "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler."
+
+
+
+----------------------
+SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
+----------------------
+
+Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
+
+Jeff Garzik, "Linux kernel patch submission format".
+  Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt
+
+Greg Kroah-Hartman, "How to piss off a kernel subsystem maintainer".
+  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer.html>
+  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-02.html>
+  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-03.html>
+  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-04.html>
+  <http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/maintainer-05.html>
+
+NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org people!
+  <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112112749912944&w=2>
+
+Kernel Documentation/CodingStyle:
+  <http://users.sosdg.org/~qiyong/lxr/source/Documentation/CodingStyle>
+
+Linus Torvalds's mail on the canonical patch format:
+  <http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/7/183>
+
+Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
+  Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in.
+  http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf
+
+--
diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/patches/applying-patches.txt b/Documentation/development-process/patches/applying-patches.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a083ba3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/applying-patches.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,454 @@
+
+	Applying Patches To The Linux Kernel
+	------------------------------------
+
+	Original by: Jesper Juhl, August 2005
+	Last update: 2006-01-05
+
+
+A frequently asked question on the Linux Kernel Mailing List is how to apply
+a patch to the kernel or, more specifically, what base kernel a patch for
+one of the many trees/branches should be applied to. Hopefully this document
+will explain this to you.
+
+In addition to explaining how to apply and revert patches, a brief
+description of the different kernel trees (and examples of how to apply
+their specific patches) is also provided.
+
+
+What is a patch?
+---
+ A patch is a small text document containing a delta of changes between two
+different versions of a source tree. Patches are created with the `diff'
+program.
+To correctly apply a patch you need to know what base it was generated from
+and what new version the patch will change the source tree into. These
+should both be present in the patch file metadata or be possible to deduce
+from the filename.
+
+
+How do I apply or revert a patch?
+---
+ You apply a patch with the `patch' program. The patch program reads a diff
+(or patch) file and makes the changes to the source tree described in it.
+
+Patches for the Linux kernel are generated relative to the parent directory
+holding the kernel source dir.
+
+This means that paths to files inside the patch file contain the name of the
+kernel source directories it was generated against (or some other directory
+names like "a/" and "b/").
+Since this is unlikely to match the name of the kernel source dir on your
+local machine (but is often useful info to see what version an otherwise
+unlabeled patch was generated against) you should change into your kernel
+source directory and then strip the first element of the path from filenames
+in the patch file when applying it (the -p1 argument to `patch' does this).
+
+To revert a previously applied patch, use the -R argument to patch.
+So, if you applied a patch like this:
+	patch -p1 < ../patch-x.y.z
+
+You can revert (undo) it like this:
+	patch -R -p1 < ../patch-x.y.z
+
+
+How do I feed a patch/diff file to `patch'?
+---
+ This (as usual with Linux and other UNIX like operating systems) can be
+done in several different ways.
+In all the examples below I feed the file (in uncompressed form) to patch
+via stdin using the following syntax:
+	patch -p1 < path/to/patch-x.y.z
+
+If you just want to be able to follow the examples below and don't want to
+know of more than one way to use patch, then you can stop reading this
+section here.
+
+Patch can also get the name of the file to use via the -i argument, like
+this:
+	patch -p1 -i path/to/patch-x.y.z
+
+If your patch file is compressed with gzip or bzip2 and you don't want to
+uncompress it before applying it, then you can feed it to patch like this
+instead:
+	zcat path/to/patch-x.y.z.gz | patch -p1
+	bzcat path/to/patch-x.y.z.bz2 | patch -p1
+
+If you wish to uncompress the patch file by hand first before applying it
+(what I assume you've done in the examples below), then you simply run
+gunzip or bunzip2 on the file -- like this:
+	gunzip patch-x.y.z.gz
+	bunzip2 patch-x.y.z.bz2
+
+Which will leave you with a plain text patch-x.y.z file that you can feed to
+patch via stdin or the -i argument, as you prefer.
+
+A few other nice arguments for patch are -s which causes patch to be silent
+except for errors which is nice to prevent errors from scrolling out of the
+screen too fast, and --dry-run which causes patch to just print a listing of
+what would happen, but doesn't actually make any changes. Finally --verbose
+tells patch to print more information about the work being done.
+
+
+Common errors when patching
+---
+ When patch applies a patch file it attempts to verify the sanity of the
+file in different ways.
+Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file & checking the code
+around the bits being modified matches the context provided in the patch are
+just two of the basic sanity checks patch does.
+
+If patch encounters something that doesn't look quite right it has two
+options. It can either refuse to apply the changes and abort or it can try
+to find a way to make the patch apply with a few minor changes.
+
+One example of something that's not 'quite right' that patch will attempt to
+fix up is if all the context matches, the lines being changed match, but the
+line numbers are different. This can happen, for example, if the patch makes
+a change in the middle of the file but for some reasons a few lines have
+been added or removed near the beginning of the file. In that case
+everything looks good it has just moved up or down a bit, and patch will
+usually adjust the line numbers and apply the patch.
+
+Whenever patch applies a patch that it had to modify a bit to make it fit
+it'll tell you about it by saying the patch applied with 'fuzz'.
+You should be wary of such changes since even though patch probably got it
+right it doesn't /always/ get it right, and the result will sometimes be
+wrong.
+
+When patch encounters a change that it can't fix up with fuzz it rejects it
+outright and leaves a file with a .rej extension (a reject file). You can
+read this file to see exactly what change couldn't be applied, so you can
+go fix it up by hand if you wish.
+
+If you don't have any third-party patches applied to your kernel source, but
+only patches from kernel.org and you apply the patches in the correct order,
+and have made no modifications yourself to the source files, then you should
+never see a fuzz or reject message from patch. If you do see such messages
+anyway, then there's a high risk that either your local source tree or the
+patch file is corrupted in some way. In that case you should probably try
+re-downloading the patch and if things are still not OK then you'd be advised
+to start with a fresh tree downloaded in full from kernel.org.
+
+Let's look a bit more at some of the messages patch can produce.
+
+If patch stops and presents a "File to patch:" prompt, then patch could not
+find a file to be patched. Most likely you forgot to specify -p1 or you are
+in the wrong directory. Less often, you'll find patches that need to be
+applied with -p0 instead of -p1 (reading the patch file should reveal if
+this is the case -- if so, then this is an error by the person who created
+the patch but is not fatal).
+
+If you get "Hunk #2 succeeded at 1887 with fuzz 2 (offset 7 lines)." or a
+message similar to that, then it means that patch had to adjust the location
+of the change (in this example it needed to move 7 lines from where it
+expected to make the change to make it fit).
+The resulting file may or may not be OK, depending on the reason the file
+was different than expected.
+This often happens if you try to apply a patch that was generated against a
+different kernel version than the one you are trying to patch.
+
+If you get a message like "Hunk #3 FAILED at 2387.", then it means that the
+patch could not be applied correctly and the patch program was unable to
+fuzz its way through. This will generate a .rej file with the change that
+caused the patch to fail and also a .orig file showing you the original
+content that couldn't be changed.
+
+If you get "Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n]"
+then patch detected that the change contained in the patch seems to have
+already been made.
+If you actually did apply this patch previously and you just re-applied it
+in error, then just say [n]o and abort this patch. If you applied this patch
+previously and actually intended to revert it, but forgot to specify -R,
+then you can say [y]es here to make patch revert it for you.
+This can also happen if the creator of the patch reversed the source and
+destination directories when creating the patch, and in that case reverting
+the patch will in fact apply it.
+
+A message similar to "patch: **** unexpected end of file in patch" or "patch
+unexpectedly ends in middle of line" means that patch could make no sense of
+the file you fed to it. Either your download is broken, you tried to feed
+patch a compressed patch file without uncompressing it first, or the patch
+file that you are using has been mangled by a mail client or mail transfer
+agent along the way somewhere, e.g., by splitting a long line into two lines.
+Often these warnings can easily be fixed by joining (concatenating) the
+two lines that had been split.
+
+As I already mentioned above, these errors should never happen if you apply
+a patch from kernel.org to the correct version of an unmodified source tree.
+So if you get these errors with kernel.org patches then you should probably
+assume that either your patch file or your tree is broken and I'd advise you
+to start over with a fresh download of a full kernel tree and the patch you
+wish to apply.
+
+
+Are there any alternatives to `patch'?
+---
+ Yes there are alternatives.
+
+ You can use the `interdiff' program (http://cyberelk.net/tim/patchutils/) to
+generate a patch representing the differences between two patches and then
+apply the result.
+This will let you move from something like 2.6.12.2 to 2.6.12.3 in a single
+step. The -z flag to interdiff will even let you feed it patches in gzip or
+bzip2 compressed form directly without the use of zcat or bzcat or manual
+decompression.
+
+Here's how you'd go from 2.6.12.2 to 2.6.12.3 in a single step:
+	interdiff -z ../patch-2.6.12.2.bz2 ../patch-2.6.12.3.gz | patch -p1
+
+Although interdiff may save you a step or two you are generally advised to
+do the additional steps since interdiff can get things wrong in some cases.
+
+ Another alternative is `ketchup', which is a python script for automatic
+downloading and applying of patches (http://www.selenic.com/ketchup/).
+
+ Other nice tools are diffstat, which shows a summary of changes made by a
+patch; lsdiff, which displays a short listing of affected files in a patch
+file, along with (optionally) the line numbers of the start of each patch;
+and grepdiff, which displays a list of the files modified by a patch where
+the patch contains a given regular expression.
+
+
+Where can I download the patches?
+---
+ The patches are available at http://kernel.org/
+Most recent patches are linked from the front page, but they also have
+specific homes.
+
+The 2.6.x.y (-stable) and 2.6.x patches live at
+ ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
+
+The -rc patches live at
+ ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/
+
+The -git patches live at
+ ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
+
+The -mm kernels live at
+ ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/
+
+In place of ftp.kernel.org you can use ftp.cc.kernel.org, where cc is a
+country code. This way you'll be downloading from a mirror site that's most
+likely geographically closer to you, resulting in faster downloads for you,
+less bandwidth used globally and less load on the main kernel.org servers --
+these are good things, so do use mirrors when possible.
+
+
+The 2.6.x kernels
+---
+ These are the base stable releases released by Linus. The highest numbered
+release is the most recent.
+
+If regressions or other serious flaws are found, then a -stable fix patch
+will be released (see below) on top of this base. Once a new 2.6.x base
+kernel is released, a patch is made available that is a delta between the
+previous 2.6.x kernel and the new one.
+
+To apply a patch moving from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12, you'd do the following (note
+that such patches do *NOT* apply on top of 2.6.x.y kernels but on top of the
+base 2.6.x kernel -- if you need to move from 2.6.x.y to 2.6.x+1 you need to
+first revert the 2.6.x.y patch).
+
+Here are some examples:
+
+# moving from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.11			# change to kernel source dir
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12		# apply the 2.6.12 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.11 linux-2.6.12		# rename source dir
+
+# moving from 2.6.11.1 to 2.6.12
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.11.1			# change to kernel source dir
+$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.11.1	# revert the 2.6.11.1 patch
+					# source dir is now 2.6.11
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12		# apply new 2.6.12 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.11.1 linux-2.6.12		# rename source dir
+
+
+The 2.6.x.y kernels
+---
+ Kernels with 4-digit versions are -stable kernels. They contain small(ish)
+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.
+
+ note: the -stable team usually do make incremental patches available as well
+ as patches against the latest mainline release, but I only cover the
+ non-incremental ones below. The incremental ones can be found at
+ ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/incr/
+
+These patches are not incremental, meaning that for example the 2.6.12.3
+patch does not apply on top of the 2.6.12.2 kernel source, but rather on top
+of the base 2.6.12 kernel source .
+So, in order to apply the 2.6.12.3 patch to your existing 2.6.12.2 kernel
+source you have to first back out the 2.6.12.2 patch (so you are left with a
+base 2.6.12 kernel source) and then apply the new 2.6.12.3 patch.
+
+Here's a small example:
+
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12.2			# change into the kernel source dir
+$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.12.2	# revert the 2.6.12.2 patch
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12.3		# apply the new 2.6.12.3 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12.2 linux-2.6.12.3	# rename the kernel source dir
+
+
+The -rc kernels
+---
+ These are release-candidate kernels. These are development kernels released
+by Linus whenever he deems the current git (the kernel's source management
+tool) tree to be in a reasonably sane state adequate for testing.
+
+These kernels are not stable and you should expect occasional breakage if
+you intend to run them. This is however the most stable of the main
+development branches and is also what will eventually turn into the next
+stable kernel, so it is important that it be tested by as many people as
+possible.
+
+This is a good branch to run for people who want to help out testing
+development kernels but do not want to run some of the really experimental
+stuff (such people should see the sections about -git and -mm kernels below).
+
+The -rc patches are not incremental, they apply to a base 2.6.x kernel, just
+like the 2.6.x.y patches described above. The kernel version before the -rcN
+suffix denotes the version of the kernel that this -rc kernel will eventually
+turn into.
+So, 2.6.13-rc5 means that this is the fifth release candidate for the 2.6.13
+kernel and the patch should be applied on top of the 2.6.12 kernel source.
+
+Here are 3 examples of how to apply these patches:
+
+# first an example of moving from 2.6.12 to 2.6.13-rc3
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12			# change into the 2.6.12 source dir
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc3	# apply the 2.6.13-rc3 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.13-rc3	# rename the source dir
+
+# now let's move from 2.6.13-rc3 to 2.6.13-rc5
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.13-rc3			# change into the 2.6.13-rc3 dir
+$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.13-rc3	# revert the 2.6.13-rc3 patch
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc5	# apply the new 2.6.13-rc5 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.13-rc3 linux-2.6.13-rc5	# rename the source dir
+
+# finally let's try and move from 2.6.12.3 to 2.6.13-rc5
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12.3			# change to the kernel source dir
+$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.12.3	# revert the 2.6.12.3 patch
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc5	# apply new 2.6.13-rc5 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12.3 linux-2.6.13-rc5	# rename the kernel source dir
+
+
+The -git kernels
+---
+ These are daily snapshots of Linus' kernel tree (managed in a git
+repository, hence the name).
+
+These patches are usually released daily and represent the current state of
+Linus's tree. They are more experimental than -rc kernels since they are
+generated automatically without even a cursory glance to see if they are
+sane.
+
+-git patches are not incremental and apply either to a base 2.6.x kernel or
+a base 2.6.x-rc kernel -- you can see which from their name.
+A patch named 2.6.12-git1 applies to the 2.6.12 kernel source and a patch
+named 2.6.13-rc3-git2 applies to the source of the 2.6.13-rc3 kernel.
+
+Here are some examples of how to apply these patches:
+
+# moving from 2.6.12 to 2.6.12-git1
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12			# change to the kernel source dir
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.12-git1	# apply the 2.6.12-git1 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-git1	# rename the kernel source dir
+
+# moving from 2.6.12-git1 to 2.6.13-rc2-git3
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12-git1		# change to the kernel source dir
+$ patch -p1 -R < ../patch-2.6.12-git1	# revert the 2.6.12-git1 patch
+					# we now have a 2.6.12 kernel
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc2	# apply the 2.6.13-rc2 patch
+					# the kernel is now 2.6.13-rc2
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc2-git3	# apply the 2.6.13-rc2-git3 patch
+					# the kernel is now 2.6.13-rc2-git3
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12-git1 linux-2.6.13-rc2-git3	# rename source dir
+
+
+The -mm kernels
+---
+ These are experimental kernels released by Andrew Morton.
+
+The -mm tree serves as a sort of proving ground for new features and other
+experimental patches.
+Once a patch has proved its worth in -mm for a while Andrew pushes it on to
+Linus for inclusion in mainline.
+
+Although it's encouraged that patches flow to Linus via the -mm tree, this
+is not always enforced.
+Subsystem maintainers (or individuals) sometimes push their patches directly
+to Linus, even though (or after) they have been merged and tested in -mm (or
+sometimes even without prior testing in -mm).
+
+You should generally strive to get your patches into mainline via -mm to
+ensure maximum testing.
+
+This branch is in constant flux and contains many experimental features, a
+lot of debugging patches not appropriate for mainline etc., and is the most
+experimental of the branches described in this document.
+
+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 (make
+sure you have up-to-date backups -- that goes for any experimental kernel but
+even more so for -mm kernels).
+
+These kernels in addition to all the other experimental patches they contain
+usually also contain any changes in the mainline -git kernels available at
+the time of release.
+
+Testing of -mm kernels is greatly appreciated since the whole point of the
+tree is to weed out regressions, crashes, data corruption bugs, build
+breakage (and any other bug in general) before changes are merged into the
+more stable mainline Linus tree.
+But testers of -mm should be aware that breakage in this tree is more common
+than in any other tree.
+
+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).
+The -mm kernels apply to either a base 2.6.x kernel (when no -rc kernels
+have been released yet) or to a Linus -rc kernel.
+
+Here are some examples of applying the -mm patches:
+
+# moving from 2.6.12 to 2.6.12-mm1
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12			# change to the 2.6.12 source dir
+$ patch -p1 < ../2.6.12-mm1		# apply the 2.6.12-mm1 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12 linux-2.6.12-mm1	# rename the source appropriately
+
+# moving from 2.6.12-mm1 to 2.6.13-rc3-mm3
+$ cd ~/linux-2.6.12-mm1
+$ patch -p1 -R < ../2.6.12-mm1		# revert the 2.6.12-mm1 patch
+					# we now have a 2.6.12 source
+$ patch -p1 < ../patch-2.6.13-rc3	# apply the 2.6.13-rc3 patch
+					# we now have a 2.6.13-rc3 source
+$ patch -p1 < ../2.6.13-rc3-mm3		# apply the 2.6.13-rc3-mm3 patch
+$ cd ..
+$ mv linux-2.6.12-mm1 linux-2.6.13-rc3-mm3	# rename the source dir
+
+
+This concludes this list of explanations of the various kernel trees.
+I hope you are now clear on how to apply the various patches and help testing
+the kernel.
+
+Thank you's to Randy Dunlap, Rolf Eike Beer, Linus Torvalds, Bodo Eggert,
+Johannes Stezenbach, Grant Coady, Pavel Machek and others that I may have
+forgotten for their reviews and contributions to this document.
+
-- 
1.8.1.2

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Documentation: Adding "The Perfect Patch" by Andrew Morton

[Dave Jones]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:49:53PM +1000, Ben Minerds wrote:
 > +- Don't bother mentioning what version of the kernel the patch applies to
 > +  ("applies to 2.6.8-rc1").  This is not interesting information - once the
 > +  patch is in bitkeeper, of _course_ it applied, and it'll probably be merged
 > +  into a later kernel than the one which you wrote it for.
 > +
 > +- Do not refer to earlier patches when changelogging a new version of a
 > +  patch.  It's not very useful to have a bitkeeper changelog which says "OK,
 > +  this fixes the things you mentioned yesterday".  Each iteration of the patch
 > +  should contain a standalone changelog.  This implies that you need a patch
 > +  management system which maintains changelogs.  See below.

s/bitkeeper/git/

 > +- Make sure that your patches apply to the latest version of the kernel
 > +  tree.  Either straight from bitkeeper or from
 > +  ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/

ditto. (Also, update url)

	Dave

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Documentation: Adding "The Perfect Patch" by Andrew Morton

[Rob Landley]

On 05/23/2013 07:49:53 AM, Ben Minerds wrote:
>  Adding Andrews advice on patch submission and subdirectory for  
> further patch
>  documentstion.

You've seen Documentation/SubmittingPatches right?

>  Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt                  | 167  
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 167 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644  
> Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> 
> diff --git  
> a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt  
> b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..b07074e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
> +From: Andrew Morton [email blocked]
> +To: Mukker, Atul [email blocked]
> +Subject: Re: [patch] 2.6.9-rc1-mm1: megaraid_mbox.c compile error  
> with gcc 3.4
> +Date: 	Sat, 28 Aug 2004 13:04:19 -0700
> +

This email is eight years old.

> +"Mukker, Atul" [email blocked] wrote:
> +>
> +> The driver and the patches with the re-ordered functions is  
> available at
> +>  ftp://ftp.lsil.com/pub/linux-megaraid/drivers/version-2.20.3.1/
> +
> +I dunno about James, but I *really* dislike receiving patches by  
> going and
> +getting them from internet servers.  It breaks our commonly-used  
> tools.  It
> +loses authorship info.  It loses Signed-off-by: info.  There is no
> +changelog.  All this means that your patch is more likely to be  
> ignored by
> +busy people.  Please, just email the diffs.
> +
> +I wrote a little guide this week:
> +
> +
> +
> +The perfect patch. [email blocked]
> +
> +The latest version of this document may be found at
> +http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt

Could you just grab the actual version from his repo instead of one  
that says "email blocked" and commemorates the URL of a rejected  
submission in a chatty email header?

> +Delivery
> +========
> +
> +- Patches are delivered via email only.  Downloading them from  
> internet
> +  servers is a pain.
> +
> +- One patch per email, with the changelog in the body of the email.
> +
> +Subject:
> +========
> +
> +- The email's Subject: should consisely describe the patch which  
> that email
> +  contains.  The Subject: should not be a filename.  Do not use the  
> same
> +  Subject: for every patch in a whole patch series.
> +
> +  Bear in mind that the Subject: of your email becomes a  
> globally-unique
> +  identifier for that patch.  It propagates all the way into  
> BitKeeper.  The
> +  Subject: may later be used in developer discussions which refer to  
> the
> +  patch.  People will want to google for the patch's Subject: to read
> +  discussion regarding that patch.
> +
> +- When sending a series of patches, the patches should be  
> sequence-numbered
> +  in the Subject:
> +
> +- It is nice if the Subject: includes mention of the subsystem which  
> it
> +  affects.  See example below.
> +
> +- Example Subject:
> +
> +	[patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
> +
> +- Note that various people's patch receiving scripts will strip away
> +  Subject: text which is inside brackets [].  So you should place  
> information
> +  which has no long-term relevance to the patch inside brackets.   
> This
> +  includes the word "patch" and any sequence numbering.  The  
> subsystem
> +  identifier ("ext2:") should hence be outside brackets.
> +
> +
> +Changelog
> +=========
> +
> +- Bear in mind that the Subject: and changelog which you provide will
> +  propagate all the way into the permanent kernel record.  Other  
> developers
> +  will want to read and understand your patch and changelog years in  
> the
> +  future.
> +
> +  So the changelog should describe the patch fully:
> +
> +  - why the kernel needed patching
> +
> +  - the overall design approach in the patch
> +
> +  - implementation details
> +
> +  - testing results
> +
> +- Don't bother mentioning what version of the kernel the patch  
> applies to
> +  ("applies to 2.6.8-rc1").  This is not interesting information -  
> once the
> +  patch is in bitkeeper, of _course_ it applied, and it'll probably  
> be merged
> +  into a later kernel than the one which you wrote it for.
> +

Bitkeeper?

Is this really current advice? What part of this has _not_ been put in  
SubmittingPatches yet?

(I'm all for moving SubmittingPatches and friends under  
development-process/ and in fact vaguely plan a general Documentation/  
tree cleanup next time I have some downtime between contracts. But  
adding eight year old duplication: not so much.)

> +- Do not refer to earlier patches when changelogging a new version  
> of a
> +  patch.  It's not very useful to have a bitkeeper changelog which  
> says "OK,
> +  this fixes the things you mentioned yesterday".  Each iteration of  
> the patch
> +  should contain a standalone changelog.  This implies that you need  
> a patch
> +  management system which maintains changelogs.  See below.
> +
> +- Add a Signed-off-by: line.
> +

There's a whole edifice of signed-off-by line advice elsewhere in  
Documentation. (The pointy-haired types descended on this and attempted  
to make a bureaucracy out of it.)

> +- Most people's patch receiving scripts will treat a ^--- string as  
> the
> +  separator between the changelog and the patch itself.  You can use  
> this to
> +  ensure that any diffstat information is discarded when the patch  
> is applied:
> +
> +
> +
> +	Another few #if/#ifdef cleanups, this time for the PPC  
> architecture.
> +
> +	Signed-off-by: <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
> +	Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [email blocked]
> +	---
> +
> +	 25-akpm/arch/ppc/kernel/process.c                    |    2 +-
> +	 25-akpm/arch/ppc/platforms/85xx/mpc85xx_cds_common.c |    2 +-
> +	 25-akpm/arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_setup.c              |    4  
> ++--
> +	 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> +
> +	--- 25/arch/ppc/kernel/process.c
> +	+++ 25/arch/ppc/kernel/process.c
> +	@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ void show_stack(struct task_struct *tsk,
> +

SubmittingPatches has recommended diffstat command lines...

> +
> +The diff
> +========
> +
> +- Patches should be in `patch -p1' form:
> +
> +  --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +  +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> +
> +- Make sure that your patches apply to the latest version of the  
> kernel
> +  tree.  Either straight from bitkeeper or from
> +  ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
> +
> +- When raising patches for -mm it's generally best to base them on  
> the
> +  latest Linus tree.  I'll work out any rejects/incompatibilities.   
> There are
> +  of course exceptions to this.
> +
> +- Ensure that your patch does not add new trailing whitespace.  The  
> below
> +  script will fix up your patch by stripping off such whitespace.
> +
> +	#!/bin/sh
> +
> +	strip1()
> +	{
> +		TMP=$(mktemp /tmp/XXXXXX)
> +		cp $1 $TMP
> +		sed -e '/^+/s/[ 	]*$//' < $TMP > $1
> +		rm $TMP
> +	}
> +
> +	for i in $*
> +	do
> +		strip1 $i
> +	done

Doesn't scripts/checkpatch.pl check for this?

> +
> +Overall
> +=======
> +
> +- Avoid MIME and attachements if possible.  Make sure that your  
> email client
> +  does not wordwrap your patch.  Make sure that your email client  
> does not
> +  replace tabs with spaces.

We have Docuemntation/email-clients.txt which would probably also go  
under development-process/.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 2/8] Documentation: Adding "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format"

[Rob Landley]

On 05/23/2013 07:49:54 AM, Ben Minerds wrote:
>  Adding "Linux Kernel Patch Submission Format" reference to remove  
> external
>  dependancy.
> 
>  Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt            | 89  
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
...
> +For more details, read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and  
> Documentation/SubmittingDrivers in the kernel source tree.

What's in this that _isn't_ in SubmittingPatches? What does having this  
second file add?

Rob

Re: [PATCH 5/8] Documentation: Replacing reference to broken submission format URL

[Rob Landley]

On 05/23/2013 07:49:57 AM, Ben Minerds wrote:
>  Replacing refs to broken URL with internal documentation reference,  
> and a
>  little whitespace shuffle to keep it under 80 chars wide.
> 
>  Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/HOWTO                   | 10 +++++-----
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches       |  2 +-
>  Documentation/ja_JP/HOWTO             |  8 ++++----
>  Documentation/ja_JP/SubmittingPatches |  2 +-
>  Documentation/ko_KR/HOWTO             |  2 +-
>  Documentation/zh_CN/HOWTO             |  2 +-
>  Documentation/zh_CN/SubmittingPatches |  2 +-
>  7 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/HOWTO b/Documentation/HOWTO
> index 11e597e..fba34c0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/HOWTO
> +++ b/Documentation/HOWTO
> @@ -110,11 +110,11 @@ required reading:
>      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"
> -		 
> Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> -	"Linux kernel patch submission format"
> -		http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
> +  Other excellent descriptions of how to create patches properly are:
> +    "The Perfect Patch"
> +      Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> +    "Linux kernel patch submission format"
> +       
> Documentation/development-process/patches/Patch-Submission-Format.txt

Ok, this is the third consecutive patch to do approximately the same  
thing, and now you're patching lines you added in a previous patch in  
the same series.

Breaking files up into stages helps with bisectability. Are we really  
going to "git bisect" documentation?

On the larger question of "is this a good idea", I'm leaning towards  
"no" and would like you to explain why an 8 year old description  
duplicating portions of SubmittingPatches needs to be in-tree.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Documentation: Adding "The Perfect Patch" by Andrew Morton

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 23:10 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 07:49:53 AM, Ben Minerds wrote:
> >  Adding Andrews advice on patch submission and subdirectory for  
> > further patch
> >  documentstion.
> 
> You've seen Documentation/SubmittingPatches right?

Maybe not.

> > +- Ensure that your patch does not add new trailing whitespace.  The  
> > below
> > +  script will fix up your patch by stripping off such whitespace.
[]
> Doesn't scripts/checkpatch.pl check for this?

Yes it does.
scripts/cleanpatch exists too.

Re: [PATCH 6/8] Documentation: Updating a broken link in "the perfect patch"

[Rob Landley]

On 05/23/2013 07:49:58 AM, Ben Minerds wrote:
>  The link to Andrews patches were out of date. Replacing with new  
> links. Also
>  slightly reformatted to allow easier selection of links.
> 
>  Signed-off-by: Ben Minerds <puzzleduck@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt | 8  
> ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git  
> a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt  
> b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> index 217a303..63eccbb 100644
> --- a/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/development-process/patches/The-Perfect-Patch.txt
> @@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ Overall
> 
> 
> 
> -The patch management scripts at  
> http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/
> -implement all of the above.
> +The patch management scripts here implement all of the above:
> +  https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/

I looked in that directory, and I'm not seeing quilt.

> -The patch management tools at  
> https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt/ also
> -implement all of the above.
> \ No newline at end of file
> +The patch management tools here implement all of the above:
> +  https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt/

This appears to be the currently location. As mentioned on line 76 of  
the current Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I think I'd like to NAK this whole series until you read what's  
currently in the tree, please?

Rob