docs: submitting-patches: improve the base commit explanation

After receiving a second patchset this week without knowing which tree
it applies on and trying to apply it on the obvious ones and failing,
make sure the base tree information which needs to be supplied in the
0th message of the patchset is spelled out more explicitly.

Also, make the formulations stronger as this really is a requirement and
not only a useful thing anymore.

Signed-off-by: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>
change-id: <unique-series-id>
base-commit: <commit-id-or-tag>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231115170330.16626-1-bp@alien8.de

docs: submitting-patches: encourage direct notifications to commenters

Commenters may not receive new versions of patches via the lists.
Without a directed notification to them they might miss those new
versions.

This is frustrating for the patch developers as they don't receive their
earned Reviewed-by.
It is also frustrating for the commenters, as they might think their
review got ignored or they have to dig up new versions from the archive
manually.

So encourage patch submitters to make sure that all commenters get
notified also when no Reviewed-by was issued yet.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Acked-by: Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231003-docs-cc-reviewer-v2-1-f93fb946e21e@weissschuh.net

docs: submitting-patches: Suggest a longer expected time for responses

While some subsystems do typically have very fast turnaround times on
review this is far from standard over the kernel and is likely to set
unrealistic expectations for submitters. Tell submitters to expect 2-3
weeks instead, this will cover more of the kernel.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913-submitting-patches-delay-v1-1-a2d48c5ca205@kernel.org

docs: submitting-patches: Discuss interleaved replies

Top-posting has been strongly discouraged in Linux development, but this
was actually not written anywhere in the common documentation about
sending patches and replying to reviews. Add a section about trimming
and interleaved replies.

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230511184131.gonna.399-kees@kernel.org

docs: process: allow Closes tags with links

Since v6.3, checkpatch.pl now complains about the use of "Closes:" tags
followed by a link [1]. It also complains if a "Reported-by:" tag is
followed by a "Closes:" one [2].

As detailed in the first patch, this "Closes:" tag is used for a bit of
time, mainly by DRM and MPTCP subsystems. It is used by some bug trackers
to automate the closure of issues when a patch is accepted. It is even
planned to use this tag with bugzilla.kernel.org [3].

The first patch updates the documentation to explain what is this
"Closes:" tag and how/when to use it. The second patch modifies
checkpatch.pl to stop complaining about it.

The DRM maintainers and their mailing list have been added in Cc as they
are probably interested by these two patches as well.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/3b036087d80b8c0e07a46a1dbaaf4ad0d018f8d5.1674217480.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/bb5dfd55ea2026303ab2296f4a6df3da7dd64006.1674217480.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230315181205.f3av7h6owqzzw64p@meerkat.local/


This patch (of 5):

Making sure a bug tracker is up to date is not an easy task. For example,
a first version of a patch fixing a tracked issue can be sent a long time
after having created the issue. But also, it can take some time to have
this patch accepted upstream in its final form. When it is done, someone
-- probably not the person who accepted the patch -- has to remember about
closing the corresponding issue.

This task of closing and tracking the patch can be done automatically by
bug trackers like GitLab [1], GitHub [2] and hopefully soon [3]
bugzilla.kernel.org when the appropriated tag is used. The two first ones
accept multiple tags but it is probably better to pick one.

According to commit 76f381bb77a0 ("checkpatch: warn when unknown tags are used for links"),
the "Closes" tag seems to have been used in the past by a few people and
it is supported by popular bug trackers. Here is how it has been used in
the past:

$ git log --no-merges --format=email -P --grep='^Closes: http' | \
grep '^Closes: http' | cut -d/ -f3-5 | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
391 gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel
79 github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next
8 gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm
3 gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd
2 gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa
1 patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/73320
1 gitlab.freedesktop.org/lima/linux
1 gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/nouveau
1 github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux
1 bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1579
1 bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1543
1 bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1436
1 bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1427
1 bugs.debian.org/625804

Likely here, the "Closes" tag was only properly used with GitLab and
GitHub. We can also see that it has been used quite a few times (and
still used recently) and this is then not a "random tag that makes no
sense" like it was the case with "BugLink" recently [4]. It has also been
misused but that was a long time ago, when it was common to use many
different random tags.

checkpatch.pl script should then stop complaining about this "Closes" tag.
As suggested by Thorsten [5], if this tag is accepted, it should first be
described in the documentation. This is what is done here in this patch.

To avoid confusion, the "Closes" should be used with any public bug
report. No need to check if the underlying bug tracker supports
automations. Having this tag with any kind of public bug reports allows
bots like regzbot to clearly identify patches fixing a specific bug and
avoid false-positives, e.g. patches mentioning it is related to an issue
but not fixing it. As suggested by Thorsten [6] again, if we follow the
same logic, the "Closes" tag should then be used after a "Reported-by"
one.

Note that thanks to this "Closes" tag, the mentioned bug trackers can also
locate where a patch has been applied in different branches and
repositories. If only the "Link" tag is used, the tracking can also be
done but the ticket will not be closed and a manual operation will be
needed. Also, these bug trackers have some safeguards: the closure is
only done if a commit having the "Closes:" tag is applied in a specific
branch. It will then not be closed if a random commit having the same tag
is published elsewhere. Also in case of closure, a notification is sent
to the owners.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v4-0-d26d1fa66f9f@tessares.net
Link: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/issues/managing_issues.html#default-closing-pattern [1]
Link: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/using-keywords-in-issues-and-pull-requests [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230315181205.f3av7h6owqzzw64p@meerkat.local/ [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgs38ZrfPvy=nOwVkVzjpM3VFU1zobP37Fwd_h9iAD5JQ@mail.gmail.com/ [4]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/688cd6cb-90ab-6834-a6f5-97080e39ca8e@leemhuis.info/ [5]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/2194d19d-f195-1a1e-41fc-7827ae569351@leemhuis.info/ [6]
Link: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/373
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v4-1-d26d1fa66f9f@tessares.net
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>
Suggested-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Kai Wasserbäch <kai@dev.carbon-project.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Documentation/process: always CC responsible lists

The "Select the recipients for your patch" part about CC-ing mailing
lists is a bit vague and might be understood that only some lists should
be Cc-ed. That's not what most of the maintainers expect. For given
code, associated mailing list must always be CC-ed, because the list is
used for reviewing and testing patches. Example are the Devicetree
bindings patches, which are tested iff Devicetree mailing list is CC-ed.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230413165501.47442-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/security-bugs: move from admin-guide/ to process/

Jiri Kosina, Jonathan Corbet, and Willy Tarreau all expressed a desire
to move this document under process/.

Create a new section for security issues in the index and group it with
embargoed-hardware-issues.

I'm doing this at the start of the series to make all the subsequent
changes show up in 'git blame'.

Existing references were updated using:

git grep -l security-bugs ':!Documentation/translations/' | xargs sed -i 's|admin-guide/security-bugs|process/security-bugs|g'
git grep -l security-bugs Documentation/translations/ | xargs sed -i 's|Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs|Documentation/process/security-bugs|g'
git grep -l security-bugs Documentation/translations/ | xargs sed -i '/Original:/s|\.\./admin-guide/security-bugs|\.\./process/security-bugs|g'

Notably, the page is not moved in the translations (due to my lack of
knowledge of these languages), but the translations have been updated
to point to the new location of the original document where these
references exist.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/nycvar.YFH.7.76.2206062326230.10851@cbobk.fhfr.pm/
Suggested-by: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
Cc: Yanteng Si <siyanteng@loongson.cn>
Cc: Hu Haowen <src.res@email.cn>
Cc: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Cc: Tsugikazu Shibata <tshibata@ab.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Jeimi Lee <jamee.lee@samsung.com>
Cc: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Yanteng Si <siyanteng@loongson.cn>
Reviewed-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Reviewed-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230305220010.20895-2-vegard.nossum@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

docs: process: typo fix

In the second paragraph of section "Respond to review comments", there is
a spelling mistake: "aganst" should be "against".

Signed-off-by: Xujun Leng <lengxujun2007@126.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230312071423.3042-1-lengxujun2007@126.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: recommend using Link: whenever using Reported-by:

Encourage developers to place Link: tag pointing to the report when they
are using Reported-by: tags. Those links are often extremely useful for
any code archaeologist that wants to know more about the backstory of a
change than the commit message provides. That includes maintainers
higher up in the patch-flow hierarchy, which is why Linus asks
developers to add such links [1, 2, 3]. To quote [1]:

> Again, the commit has a link to the patch *submission*, which is
> almost entirely useless. There's no link to the actual problem the
> patch fixes.
>
> [...]
>
> Put another way: I can see that
>
> Reported-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@foxmail.com>
>
> in the commit, but I don't have a clue what the actual report was, and
> there really isn't enough information in the commit itself, except for
> a fairly handwavy "Device drivers might, for instance, still need to
> flush operations.."
>
> I don't want to know what device drivers _might_ do. I would want to
> have an actual pointer to what they do and where.

Another reason why these links are wanted: the ongoing regression
tracking efforts can only scale with them, as they allow the regression
tracking bot 'regzbot' to automatically connect tracked reports with
patches that are posted or committed to fix tracked regressions.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjMmSZzMJ3Xnskdg4+GGz=5p5p+GSYyFBTh0f-DgvdBWg@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgs38ZrfPvy=nOwVkVzjpM3VFU1zobP37Fwd_h9iAD5JQ@mail.gmail.com/ [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjxzafG-=J8oT30s7upn4RhBs6TX-uVFZ5rME+L5_DoJA@mail.gmail.com/ [3]
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/9a07ec640d809723492f8ade4f54705914e80419.1676369564.git.linux@leemhuis.info
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation: simplify and clarify DCO contribution example language

Long long ago, in a more innocent time, Greg wrote the clarification for
how the DCO should work and that you couldn't make anonymous
contributions, because the sign-off needed to be something we could
check back with.

It was 2006, and nobody reacted to the wording, the whole Facebook 'real
name' controversy was a decade in the future, and nobody even thought
about it. And despite the language, we've always accepted nicknames and
that language was never meant to be any kind of exclusionary wording.

In fact, even when it became a discussion in other adjacent projects,
apparently nobody even thought to just clarify the language in the
kernel docs, and instead we had projects like the CNCF that had long
discussions about it, and wrote their own clarifications [1] of it.

Just simplify the wording to the point where it shouldn't be causing
unnecessary angst and pain, or scare away people who go by preferred
naming.

Link: https://github.com/cncf/foundation/blob/659fd32c86dc/dco-guidelines.md [1]
Fixes: af45f32d25cc ("We can not allow anonymous contributions to the kernel")
Acked-by: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Documentation: process/submitting-patches: misspelling "mesages"

Fix spelling mistakes, "mesages" should be spelled "messages".

Signed-off-by: Rong Tao <rtoax@foxmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/tencent_924BF0B25425E2D5673409D1CF604F682505@qq.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: process: remove outdated submitting-drivers.rst

Commit 31b24bee3357 ("docs: add a warning to submitting-drivers.rst")
in October 2016 already warns "This (...) should maybe just be deleted,
but I'm not quite ready to do that yet".

Maybe, six years ago, we were not ready but let us remove old content
for the better now and structure and maintain less content in the kernel
documentation with a better result.

Drop this already outdated document and adjust all textual references.

Here is an argument why deleting the content will not remove any useful
information to the existing kernel documentation, individually broken down
for each section.

Section "Allocating Device Numbers" refers to https://www.lanana.org/, and
then refers to Documentation/admin-guide/devices.rst.

However, the devices.rst clearly states:

"The version of this document at lanana.org is no longer maintained."

Everything needed for submitting drivers is already stated in devices.rst
and the reference to https://www.lanana.org/ is outdated, and should be
just deleted.

Section "Who To Submit Drivers To" is all about Linux 2.0 - 2.6, before
the new release version scheme; the mentioned developers are still around,
but actually not the first developers to contact anymore.

Section "What Criteria Determine Acceptance" has a few bullet points:

Licensing and Copyright is well-covered in process/kernel-license.rst.

Interfaces, Code, Portability, Clarity state some obvious things about
ensuring kernel code quality.

Control suggests to add a MAINTAINERS entry, which is already mentioned in
6.Followthrough.rst: "... added yourself to the MAINTAINERS file..."

PM support states a bit about implementing and testing power management of
a driver, it remains an open question where to place that in the process
documents. Driver developers interested in power management will find the
corresponding part on power management in the kernel documentation anyway.

In section "What Criteria Do Not Determine Acceptance", the points Vendor
and Author states something basic consequence of the kernel being an
open-source community software development. Probably no need to mention it
nowadays.

Section "Resources" lists resources that are also mentioned elsewhere more
central.

- Linux kernel tree and mailing list is mentioned in many places.
- https://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/ is mentioned in
Documentation/process/kernel-docs.rst.

- https://lwn.net/ is mentioned in:
- Documentation/process/8.Conclusion.rst
- Documentation/process/kernel-docs.rst

- https://kernelnewbies.org/ is mentioned in:
- Documentation/process/8.Conclusion.rst
- Documentation/process/kernel-docs.rst

- http://www.linux-usb.org/ is mentioned in
Documentation/driver-api/usb/usb.rst

- https://landley.net/kdocs/ols/2002/ols2002-pages-545-555.pdf
is mentioned in Documentation/process/kernel-docs.rst

- https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelJanitors is mentioned in
Documentation/process/howto.rst

- https://git-scm.com/ is mentioned in
- Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
- Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
- Documentation/process/howto.rst

Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220704122537.3407-7-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: use scripts/get_maintainer.pl on patches

Explain that, when collecting list of people to Cc the patch,
scripts/get_maintainer.pl should be used on patches, not on the
directories. The behavior is quite different, because with "-f" on
a directory, the maintainers of individual files will not be shown.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220427185645.677039-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: Fix crossref to 'The canonical patch format'

The reference to `explicit_in_reply_to` is pointless as when the
reference was added in the form of "#15" [1], Section 15) was "The
canonical patch format".
The reference of "#15" had not been properly updated in a couple of
reorganizations during the plain-text SubmittingPatches era.

Fix it by using `the_canonical_patch_format`.

[1]: 2ae19acaa50a ("Documentation: Add "how to write a good patch summary" to SubmittingPatches")

Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Fixes: 5903019b2a5e ("Documentation/SubmittingPatches: convert it to ReST markup")
Fixes: 9b2c76777acc ("Documentation/SubmittingPatches: enrich the Sphinx output")
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.9+
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/64e105a5-50be-23f2-6cae-903a2ea98e18@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: mention patch changelog in review process

Extend the "Respond to review comments" section of "Submitting patches"
with reference to patch changelogs.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: process: submitting-patches: Clarify the Reported-by usage

It's unclear from "Submitting Patches" documentation that Reported-by
is not supposed to be used against new features. (It's more clear
in the section 5.4 "Patch formatting and changelogs" of the "A guide
to the Kernel Development Process", where it suggests that change
should fix something existing in the kernel. Clarify the Reported-by
usage in the "Submitting Patches".

Reported-by: Florian Eckert <fe@dev.tdt.de>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220127163258.48482-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation: remove trivial tree

As has been discussed some time ago on ksumitt-discuss@ mailinglist,
the need for trivial tree diminished over time as all the tooling and
processess became much more mature and it's quite natural these days
for trivial patches to flow through subsystem trees anyway, so the
spin-off of a trivial tree doesn't make sense any more, and is not worth
the merge conflicts it might sometimes create.

So remove any mentions of it from kernel documentation for good.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/nycvar.YFH.7.76.2104222334290.18270@cbobk.fhfr.pm/
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>

Remove mentions of the Trivial Patch Monkey

Apparently, it was decided that trivial@kernel.org
is no longer used.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fe86efbd-4e03-76c8-55cf-dabd33e85823@infradead.org/
Co-developed-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211214191415.GA19070@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: fix self reference

Instead link to the device tree document with the same name.

Signed-off-by: Erik Ekman <erik@kryo.se>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211119200758.642474-1-erik@kryo.se
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: fix a cross reference

The cross-reference for the handbooks section works. However, it is
meant to describe the path inside the Kernel's doc where the section
is, but there's an space instead of a dash, plus it lacks the .rst at
the end, which makes:

./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check

to complain.

Fixes: 604370e106cc ("Documentation/process: Add maintainer handbooks section")
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: make section about the Link: tag more explicit

Mention the 'Link' tag in the section about adding URLs to the commit
msg, to make it clearer they "_primarily_ [...] should be about
background", as Linus recently stated (see the link below). That makes
the explanation also easier to find with a text search. For the same
reason and to improve comprehensibility provide an example, too.

Slightly improve the text at the same time to make it more obvious
developers are meant to add links to issue reports in mailing list
archives, as those allow regression tracking efforts to automatically
check which bugs got resolved.

Move the section also downwards slightly, to reduce jumping back and
forth between aspects relevant for the top and the bottom part of the
commit msg.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgBhyLhQLPem1vybKNt7BKP+=qF=veBgc7VirZaXn4FUw@mail.gmail.com/
CC: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/27105768dc19b395e7c8e7a80d056d1ff9c570d0.1635152553.git.linux@leemhuis.info
[jc: tweaked wording following Konstantin's recommendation]
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: use the lore redirector everywhere

Change all links from using the lkml redirector to the lore redirector,
as the kernel.org admin recently indicated: we shouldn't be using
lkml.kernel.org anymore because the domain can create confusion, as it
indicates it is only valid for messages sent to the LKML; the convention
has been to use https://lore.kernel.org/r/msgid for this reason.

In this process also change three links from using http to https.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211006170025.qw3glxvocczfuhar@meerkat.local
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
CC: Hu Haowen <src.res@email.cn>
CC: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
CC: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Reviewed-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/5bb55bac6ba10fafab19bf2b21572dd0e2f8cea2.1633593385.git.linux@leemhuis.info
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: Add tip tree handbook

Add a document to the subsystem/maintainer handbook section, which explains
what the tip tree is, how it operates and what rules and expectations it
has.

[ bp:

- Add a SPDX identifier, work in most comments from the thread.
- 9bf19b78a203 ("Documentation/submitting-patches: Document the SoB
chain") is also in the main Documentation but I'm leaving the
paragraph here because it has the proper structure - text talks about
SoBs and referencing somewhere else would interrupt the flow.
- Move backtraces in changelogs to main submitting-patches.rst.
- "Patch version information" is explained to a great detail in
submitting-patches.rst too.
- Hyperlink resend reminders section.
]

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171149.165693799@linutronix.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210913153942.15251-3-bp@alien8.de
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: Add maintainer handbooks section

General rules for patch submission, coding style and related details are
available, but most subsystems have their subsystem-specific extra rules
which differ or go beyond the common rules.

Mark suggested to add a subsystem/maintainer handbook section, where
subsystem maintainers can explain their specific quirks.

Add the section and link to it from the submitting-patches document.

[ bp: Add a SPDX identifier. ]

Suggested-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171149.074948887@linutronix.de
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210913153942.15251-2-bp@alien8.de
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: clarify the role of LKML

The documentation previously stated that LKML should be used as *last
resort*. However, scripts/get_maintainer.pl always suggests it and in a
discussion about changing that[0] it turned out that LKML should in fact
receive all patches.

Update documentation to make it clear that all patches should be sent to
LKML by default, in addition to any subsystem-specific lists.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/19a701a8d5837088aa7d8ba594c228c0e040e747.camel@perches.com/

Signed-off-by: Hannu Hartikainen <hannu@hrtk.in>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210707133634.286840-1-hannu@hrtk.in
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: process: submitting-patches.rst: avoid using ReST :doc:`foo` markup

The :doc:`foo` tag is auto-generated via automarkup.py.
So, use the filename at the sources, instead of :doc:`foo`.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/d172ab629c3e32c8d27ed4b9d2a209933e2a7178.1623824363.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/submitting-patches: Document RESEND tag on patches

Explain when a submitter should tag a patch or a patch series with the
"RESEND" tag.

This has been partially carved out from a tip subsystem handbook
patchset by Thomas Gleixner:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171010.421878737@linutronix.de

and incorporates follow-on comments.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/submitting-patches: Extend commit message layout description

Add more blurb about the level of detail that should be contained in a
patch's commit message. Extend and make more explicit what text should
be added under the --- line. Extend examples and split into more easily
palatable paragraphs.

This has been partially carved out from a tip subsystem handbook
patchset by Thomas Gleixner:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171010.421878737@linutronix.de

and incorporates follow-on comments.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210215141949.GB21734@zn.tnic
[jc: Tweaked "example subjects" wording]
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: networking: drop special stable handling

Leave it to Greg.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Documentation/submitting-patches: Add blurb about backtraces in commit messages

Document that backtraces in commit messages should be trimmed down to
the useful information only.

This has been carved out from a tip subsystem handbook patchset by
Thomas Gleixner:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171010.421878737@linutronix.de

and incorporates follow-on comments.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: Emphasise the requirement to Cc: stable when using Fixes: tag

Clear-up any confusion surrounding the Fixes: tag with regards to the
need to Cc: the stable mailing list when submitting stable patch
candidates.

Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210113163315.1331064-1-lee.jones@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation: Replace lkml.org links with lore

Replace the lkml.org links with lore to better use a single source
that's more likely to stay available long-term.

Done by bash script:

cvt_lkml_to_lore ()
{
tmpfile=$(mktemp ./.cvt_links.XXXXXXX)

header=$(echo $1 | sed 's@/lkml/@/lkml/headers/@')

wget -qO - $header > $tmpfile
if [[ $? == 0 ]] ; then
link=$(grep -i '^Message-Id:' $tmpfile | head -1 | \
sed -r -e 's/^\s*Message-Id:\s*<\s*//' -e 's/\s*>\s*$//' -e 's@^@https://lore.kernel.org/r/@')
# echo "testlink: $link"
if [ -n "$link" ] ; then
wget -qO - $link > /dev/null
if [[ $? == 0 ]] ; then
echo $link
fi
fi
fi

rm -f $tmpfile
}

git grep -P -o "\bhttps?://(?:www.)?lkml.org/lkml[\/\w]+" $@ |
while read line ; do
echo $line
file=$(echo $line | cut -f1 -d':')
link=$(echo $line | cut -f2- -d':')
newlink=$(cvt_lkml_to_lore $link)
if [[ -n "$newlink" ]] ; then
sed -i -e "s#\b$link\b#$newlink#" $file
fi
done

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1265849/#1462688
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/77cdb7f32cfb087955bfc3600b86c40bed5d4104.camel@perches.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/submitting-patches: Document the SoB chain

Document what a chain of Signed-off-by's in a patch commit message
should mean, explicitly.

This has been carved out from a tip subsystem handbook patchset by
Thomas Gleixner:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181107171010.421878737@linutronix.de

and incorporates follow-on comments.

Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201217183756.GE23634@zn.tnic
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: Trivial - fix grammatical error

"it is a used" does not make sense. Should be "it is used".

Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201216134654.271508-1-lee.jones@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation: include sign off for reverts

Currently, we do not have any documentation on commit reverts regarding
the requirement of Signed-off-by tag for it. This may be misleading to
the users.

Evaluating MISSING_SIGN_OFF checkpatch warnings on v4.13..v5.8 showed
that 4 out of 11 cases missing a sign-off are revert commits.

Add documentation regarding the same to document the community
consensus and let readers know.

Signed-off-by: Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201110174749.32068-1-yashsri421@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: describe preserving review/test tags

From time to time, the novice kernel contributors do not add Reviewed-by
or Tested-by tags to the next versions of the patches. Mostly because
they are unaware that responsibility of adding these tags in next
version is on submitter, not maintainer.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201013162725.13572-1-krzk@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches: use :doc: for references

There are two broken references at submitting-patches.rst:

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:240: WARNING: undefined label: security-bugs (if the link has no caption the label must precede a section header)
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:336: WARNING: undefined label: documentation/process/email-clients.rst (if the link has no caption the label must precede a section header)

Those are due to some recent renames and file moves.

It turns that maintaining :ref: is currently harder than using
:doc:, as we now have a script to help checking such references.

So, replace :ref: to :doc: there, making them to point to the
current file name.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/3ba405f579cf35ef2b39dd210d8ad46adc79f0ad.1599660067.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

submitting-patches.rst: presume git will be used

Git is fairly ubiquitous these days, and the additional information in
this documentation for preparing patches without it is not especially
relevant anymore and may serve to confuse new contributors.

The git request-pull comments were also removed, given that it is not a
tool well-suited to novice contributors, nor do maintainers especially
appreciate receiving unexpected request-pulls from new contributors.

Signed-off-by: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200903160545.83185-5-sir@cmpwn.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/maintainer: rehome sign-off process

The repeated sign-offs necessary when a subsystem maintainer modifies an
incoming patch has been moved from submitting-patches.rst to
Documentation/maintainer, since the affairs of a subsystem maintainer
are not especially relevant to someone reading a guide for how to submit
their first patch.

Signed-off-by: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200903160545.83185-4-sir@cmpwn.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: expand plain-text advice

This adds a link to https://useplaintext.email to email-clients.rst,
which is a more exhaustive resource on configuring various mail clients
for plain text use. submitting-patches.rst is also updated to direct
readers to email-clients.rst to equip new contributors with the
requisite knowledge to become a good participant on the mailing lists.

Signed-off-by: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200903160545.83185-3-sir@cmpwn.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

submitting-patches.rst: remove heading numbering

This follows similar changes throughout Documentation; these numbers
tend to get outdated and are not especially useful.

Signed-off-by: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200903160545.83185-2-sir@cmpwn.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: process: Add cross-link to security-bugs

The submitting patches mentions criteria for a fix to be called
"security fix". Add a link to document explaining the entire process
of handling security bugs.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200827105319.9734-1-krzk@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: process: Add an example for creating a fixes tag

To make it a little clearer how to create a fixes tag,
add an example based on the preceeding gitconfig setup.

Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200710200115.21176-1-trix@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones: Documentation/process

Rationale:
Reduces attack surface on kernel devs opening the links for MITM
as HTTPS traffic is much harder to manipulate.

Deterministic algorithm:
For each file:
If not .svg:
For each line:
If doesn't contain `\bxmlns\b`:
For each link, `\bhttp://[^# \t\r\n]*(?:\w|/)`:
If both the HTTP and HTTPS versions
return 200 OK and serve the same content:
Replace HTTP with HTTPS.

Signed-off-by: Alexander A. Klimov <grandmaster@al2klimov.de>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200621133630.46435-1-grandmaster@al2klimov.de
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: dt: convert submitting-patches.txt to ReST format

- Add a SPDX header;
- Adjust document and section titles;
- Mark literal blocks as such;
- Add it to bindings/index.rst.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

docs: process: Add base-commit trailer usage

One of the recurring complaints from both maintainers and CI system
operators is that performing git-am on received patches is difficult
without knowing the parent object in the git history on which the
patches are based. Without this information, there is a high likelihood
that git-am will fail due to conflicts, which is particularly
frustrating to CI operators.

Git versions starting with v2.9.0 are able to automatically include
base-commit information using the --base flag of git-format-patch.
Document this usage in process/submitting-patches, and add the rationale
for its inclusion, plus instructions for those not using git on where
the "base-commit:" trailer should go.

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: process: fix broken link

http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html seems to be down since
approximately September 2018. There is a working archive copy on
arhive.org. Replaced the links in documenation + translations.

Signed-off-by: Jacob Huisman <jacobhuisman@kernelthusiast.com>
Reviewed-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: Clarify the usage and sign-off requirements for Co-developed-by

The documentation for Co-developed-by is a bit light on details, e.g. it
doesn't explicitly state that:

- Multiple Co-developed-by tags are perfectly acceptable
- Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by must be paired together
- SOB ordering should still follow standard sign-off procedure

Lack of explicit direction has resulted in developers taking a variety
of approaches, often lacking any intent whatsoever, e.g. scattering SOBs
willy-nilly, collecting them all at the end or the beginning, etc...
Tweak the wording to make it clear that multiple co-authors are allowed,
and document the expectation that standard sign-off procedures are to
be followed.

The use of "original author" has also led to confusion as many patches
don't have just one "original" author, e.g. when multiple developers
are involved from the genesis of the patch. Remove all usage of
"original" and instead call out that Co-developed-by is simply a way to
provide attribution in addition to the From tag, i.e. neither tag is
intended to imply anything with regard to who did what.

Provide examples to (hopefully) eliminate any ambiguity.

Cc: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: remove spaces from shell variable assignment

The instructions for generating patches are given as shell commands
with variables as placeholders. They use the syntax "SRCTREE= linux",
which is wrong for the Bourne shell family (it runs the command
"linux" with the variable "SRCTREE" set to the empty string).

Remove the spaces to avoid confusion. This breaks the pretty alignment
but helps new contributors who try to run the commands as written.

Signed-off-by: Tom Levy <tomlevy93@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: Explicitly state that the 'Fixes:' tag shouldn't split lines

...and use a commit with an obnoxiously long summary in the example to
make it abundantly clear that keeping the tag on a single line takes
priority over wrapping at 75 columns. Without the explicit exemption,
one might assume splitting the tag is acceptable, even encouraged, e.g.
due to being conditioned by checkpatch's line length warning.

Per Stephen's scripts[1] and implied by commit bf4daf12a9fb ("checkpatch:
avoid some commit message long line warnings"), splitting the 'Fixes:'
tag across multiple lines is a no-no, presumably because parsing multi-
line tags is unnecessarily painful.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190216183433.71b7cfa7@canb.auug.org.au

Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: fix Co-Developed-by docs

The accepted terminology will be Co-developed-by therefore lose the
capital letter from now on.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1544808928-20002-2-git-send-email-jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

docs: Add rest label the_canonical_patch_format

In preparation to convert Documentation/network/netdev-FAQ.rst to
restructured text format. We would like to be able to reference 'the
canonical patch format' section.

Add rest label: 'the_canonical_patch_format'.

Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Docs: tell maintainers to put [GIT PULL] in their subject lines

It seems that Linus looks for [GIT PULL] in subject lines to ensure that
pull requests don't get buried in the noise during merge windows. Update
the docs to reflect that.

[jc: From an impromptu post from willy, thus no SOB]
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: add Co-Developed-by docs

When Co-Developed-by tag was added, docs were only added to
Documention/process/5.Posting.rst and were not added to
Documention/process/submitting-patches.rst

Add documentation to Documention/process/submitting-patches.rst

Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
[jc: tweaked commas in the subheading]
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

Documentation/process: fix the canonical patch format description

There shouldn't be a blank line at the beginning, if there is no
optional in-body "From" line. There must be a blank line between
the body of the explanation and the beginning of the S-o-b lines.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: submitting-patches - change non-ascii character to ascii

Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst contains a non-ascii
character. Change it to the ascii equivalent.

Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: Tweak submitting-patches.rst formatting

The main goal here was to get the subsections to show in the TOC as they do
for all the other documents. Also call out the DCO in the section title
since it's important.

Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

docs: fix locations of several documents that got moved

The previous patch renamed several files that are cross-referenced
along the Kernel documentation. Adjust the links to point to
the right places.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>

docs-rst: add documents to development-process

Add several documents to the development-process ReST book.

As we don't want renames, use symlinks instead, keeping those
documents on their original place.

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>