1.. _development_followthrough:
2
3Followthrough
4=============
5
6At this point, you have followed the guidelines given so far and, with the
7addition of your own engineering skills, have posted a perfect series of
8patches.  One of the biggest mistakes that even experienced kernel
9developers can make is to conclude that their work is now done.  In truth,
10posting patches indicates a transition into the next stage of the process,
11with, possibly, quite a bit of work yet to be done.
12
13It is a rare patch which is so good at its first posting that there is no
14room for improvement.  The kernel development process recognizes this fact,
15and, as a result, is heavily oriented toward the improvement of posted
16code.  You, as the author of that code, will be expected to work with the
17kernel community to ensure that your code is up to the kernel's quality
18standards.  A failure to participate in this process is quite likely to
19prevent the inclusion of your patches into the mainline.
20
21
22Working with reviewers
23----------------------
24
25A patch of any significance will result in a number of comments from other
26developers as they review the code.  Working with reviewers can be, for
27many developers, the most intimidating part of the kernel development
28process.  Life can be made much easier, though, if you keep a few things in
29mind:
30
31 - If you have explained your patch well, reviewers will understand its
32   value and why you went to the trouble of writing it.  But that value
33   will not keep them from asking a fundamental question: what will it be
34   like to maintain a kernel with this code in it five or ten years later?
35   Many of the changes you may be asked to make - from coding style tweaks
36   to substantial rewrites - come from the understanding that Linux will
37   still be around and under development a decade from now.
38
39 - Code review is hard work, and it is a relatively thankless occupation;
40   people remember who wrote kernel code, but there is little lasting fame
41   for those who reviewed it.  So reviewers can get grumpy, especially when
42   they see the same mistakes being made over and over again.  If you get a
43   review which seems angry, insulting, or outright offensive, resist the
44   impulse to respond in kind.  Code review is about the code, not about
45   the people, and code reviewers are not attacking you personally.
46
47 - Similarly, code reviewers are not trying to promote their employers'
48   agendas at the expense of your own.  Kernel developers often expect to
49   be working on the kernel years from now, but they understand that their
50   employer could change.  They truly are, almost without exception,
51   working toward the creation of the best kernel they can; they are not
52   trying to create discomfort for their employers' competitors.
53
54 - Be prepared for seemingly silly requests for coding style changes
55   and requests to factor out some of your code to shared parts of
56   the kernel. One job the maintainers do is to keep things looking
57   the same. Sometimes this means that the clever hack in your driver
58   to get around a problem actually needs to become a generalized
59   kernel feature ready for next time.
60
61What all of this comes down to is that, when reviewers send you comments,
62you need to pay attention to the technical observations that they are
63making.  Do not let their form of expression or your own pride keep that
64from happening.  When you get review comments on a patch, take the time to
65understand what the reviewer is trying to say.  If possible, fix the things
66that the reviewer is asking you to fix.  And respond back to the reviewer:
67thank them, and describe how you will answer their questions.
68
69Note that you do not have to agree with every change suggested by
70reviewers.  If you believe that the reviewer has misunderstood your code,
71explain what is really going on.  If you have a technical objection to a
72suggested change, describe it and justify your solution to the problem.  If
73your explanations make sense, the reviewer will accept them.  Should your
74explanation not prove persuasive, though, especially if others start to
75agree with the reviewer, take some time to think things over again.  It can
76be easy to become blinded by your own solution to a problem to the point
77that you don't realize that something is fundamentally wrong or, perhaps,
78you're not even solving the right problem.
79
80Andrew Morton has suggested that every review comment which does not result
81in a code change should result in an additional code comment instead; that
82can help future reviewers avoid the questions which came up the first time
83around.
84
85One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
86go away.  They will not go away.  If you repost code without having
87responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
88that your patches go nowhere.
89
90Speaking of reposting code: please bear in mind that reviewers are not
91going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time
92around.  So it is always a good idea to remind reviewers of previously
93raised issues and how you dealt with them; the patch changelog is a good
94place for this kind of information.  Reviewers should not have to search
95through list archives to familiarize themselves with what was said last
96time; if you help them get a running start, they will be in a better mood
97when they revisit your code.
98
99What if you've tried to do everything right and things still aren't going
100anywhere?  Most technical disagreements can be resolved through discussion,
101but there are times when somebody simply has to make a decision.  If you
102honestly believe that this decision is going against you wrongly, you can
103always try appealing to a higher power.  As of this writing, that higher
104power tends to be Andrew Morton.  Andrew has a great deal of respect in the
105kernel development community; he can often unjam a situation which seems to
106be hopelessly blocked.  Appealing to Andrew should not be done lightly,
107though, and not before all other alternatives have been explored.  And bear
108in mind, of course, that he may not agree with you either.
109
110
111What happens next
112-----------------
113
114If a patch is considered to be a good thing to add to the kernel, and once
115most of the review issues have been resolved, the next step is usually
116entry into a subsystem maintainer's tree.  How that works varies from one
117subsystem to the next; each maintainer has his or her own way of doing
118things.  In particular, there may be more than one tree - one, perhaps,
119dedicated to patches planned for the next merge window, and another for
120longer-term work.
121
122For patches applying to areas for which there is no obvious subsystem tree
123(memory management patches, for example), the default tree often ends up
124being -mm.  Patches which affect multiple subsystems can also end up going
125through the -mm tree.
126
127Inclusion into a subsystem tree can bring a higher level of visibility to a
128patch.  Now other developers working with that tree will get the patch by
129default.  Subsystem trees typically feed linux-next as well, making their
130contents visible to the development community as a whole.  At this point,
131there's a good chance that you will get more comments from a new set of
132reviewers; these comments need to be answered as in the previous round.
133
134What may also happen at this point, depending on the nature of your patch,
135is that conflicts with work being done by others turn up.  In the worst
136case, heavy patch conflicts can result in some work being put on the back
137burner so that the remaining patches can be worked into shape and merged.
138Other times, conflict resolution will involve working with the other
139developers and, possibly, moving some patches between trees to ensure that
140everything applies cleanly.  This work can be a pain, but count your
141blessings: before the advent of the linux-next tree, these conflicts often
142only turned up during the merge window and had to be addressed in a hurry.
143Now they can be resolved at leisure, before the merge window opens.
144
145Some day, if all goes well, you'll log on and see that your patch has been
146merged into the mainline kernel.  Congratulations!  Once the celebration is
147complete (and you have added yourself to the MAINTAINERS file), though, it
148is worth remembering an important little fact: the job still is not done.
149Merging into the mainline brings its own challenges.
150
151To begin with, the visibility of your patch has increased yet again.  There
152may be a new round of comments from developers who had not been aware of
153the patch before.  It may be tempting to ignore them, since there is no
154longer any question of your code being merged.  Resist that temptation,
155though; you still need to be responsive to developers who have questions or
156suggestions.
157
158More importantly, though: inclusion into the mainline puts your code into
159the hands of a much larger group of testers.  Even if you have contributed
160a driver for hardware which is not yet available, you will be surprised by
161how many people will build your code into their kernels.  And, of course,
162where there are testers, there will be bug reports.
163
164The worst sort of bug reports are regressions.  If your patch causes a
165regression, you'll find an uncomfortable number of eyes upon you;
166regressions need to be fixed as soon as possible.  If you are unwilling or
167unable to fix the regression (and nobody else does it for you), your patch
168will almost certainly be removed during the stabilization period.  Beyond
169negating all of the work you have done to get your patch into the mainline,
170having a patch pulled as the result of a failure to fix a regression could
171well make it harder for you to get work merged in the future.
172
173After any regressions have been dealt with, there may be other, ordinary
174bugs to deal with.  The stabilization period is your best opportunity to
175fix these bugs and ensure that your code's debut in a mainline kernel
176release is as solid as possible.  So, please, answer bug reports, and fix
177the problems if at all possible.  That's what the stabilization period is
178for; you can start creating cool new patches once any problems with the old
179ones have been taken care of.
180
181And don't forget that there are other milestones which may also create bug
182reports: the next mainline stable release, when prominent distributors pick
183up a version of the kernel containing your patch, etc.  Continuing to
184respond to these reports is a matter of basic pride in your work.  If that
185is insufficient motivation, though, it's also worth considering that the
186development community remembers developers who lose interest in their code
187after it's merged.  The next time you post a patch, they will be evaluating
188it with the assumption that you will not be around to maintain it
189afterward.
190
191
192Other things that can happen
193-----------------------------
194
195One day, you may open your mail client and see that somebody has mailed you
196a patch to your code.  That is one of the advantages of having your code
197out there in the open, after all.  If you agree with the patch, you can
198either forward it on to the subsystem maintainer (be sure to include a
199proper From: line so that the attribution is correct, and add a signoff of
200your own), or send an Acked-by: response back and let the original poster
201send it upward.
202
203If you disagree with the patch, send a polite response explaining why.  If
204possible, tell the author what changes need to be made to make the patch
205acceptable to you.  There is a certain resistance to merging patches which
206are opposed by the author and maintainer of the code, but it only goes so
207far.  If you are seen as needlessly blocking good work, those patches will
208eventually flow around you and get into the mainline anyway.  In the Linux
209kernel, nobody has absolute veto power over any code.  Except maybe Linus.
210
211On very rare occasion, you may see something completely different: another
212developer posts a different solution to your problem.  At that point,
213chances are that one of the two patches will not be merged, and "mine was
214here first" is not considered to be a compelling technical argument.  If
215somebody else's patch displaces yours and gets into the mainline, there is
216really only one way to respond: be pleased that your problem got solved and
217get on with your work.  Having one's work shoved aside in this manner can
218be hurtful and discouraging, but the community will remember your reaction
219long after they have forgotten whose patch actually got merged.
220