path: root/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough')
1 files changed, 206 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough b/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..41d324a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+At this point, you have followed the guidelines given so far and, with the
+addition of your own engineering skills, have posted a perfect series of
+patches. One of the biggest mistakes that even experienced kernel
+developers can make is to conclude that their work is now done. In truth,
+posting patches indicates a transition into the next stage of the process,
+with, possibly, quite a bit of work yet to be done.
+It is a rare patch which is so good at its first posting that there is no
+room for improvement. The kernel development process recognizes this fact,
+and, as a result, is heavily oriented toward the improvement of posted
+code. You, as the author of that code, will be expected to work with the
+kernel community to ensure that your code is up to the kernel's quality
+standards. A failure to participate in this process is quite likely to
+prevent the inclusion of your patches into the mainline.
+A patch of any significance will result in a number of comments from other
+developers as they review the code. Working with reviewers can be, for
+many developers, the most intimidating part of the kernel development
+process. Life can be made much easier, though, if you keep a few things in
+ - If you have explained your patch well, reviewers will understand its
+ value and why you went to the trouble of writing it. But that value
+ will not keep them from asking a fundamental question: what will it be
+ like to maintain a kernel with this code in it five or ten years later?
+ Many of the changes you may be asked to make - from coding style tweaks
+ to substantial rewrites - come from the understanding that Linux will
+ still be around and under development a decade from now.
+ - Code review is hard work, and it is a relatively thankless occupation;
+ people remember who wrote kernel code, but there is little lasting fame
+ for those who reviewed it. So reviewers can get grumpy, especially when
+ they see the same mistakes being made over and over again. If you get a
+ review which seems angry, insulting, or outright offensive, resist the
+ impulse to respond in kind. Code review is about the code, not about
+ the people, and code reviewers are not attacking you personally.
+ - Similarly, code reviewers are not trying to promote their employers'
+ agendas at the expense of your own. Kernel developers often expect to
+ be working on the kernel years from now, but they understand that their
+ employer could change. They truly are, almost without exception,
+ working toward the creation of the best kernel they can; they are not
+ trying to create discomfort for their employers' competitors.
+What all of this comes down to is that, when reviewers send you comments,
+you need to pay attention to the technical observations that they are
+making. Do not let their form of expression or your own pride keep that
+from happening. When you get review comments on a patch, take the time to
+understand what the reviewer is trying to say. If possible, fix the things
+that the reviewer is asking you to fix. And respond back to the reviewer:
+thank them, and describe how you will answer their questions.
+Note that you do not have to agree with every change suggested by
+reviewers. If you believe that the reviewer has misunderstood your code,
+explain what is really going on. If you have a technical objection to a
+suggested change, describe it and justify your solution to the problem. If
+your explanations make sense, the reviewer will accept them. Should your
+explanation not prove persuasive, though, especially if others start to
+agree with the reviewer, take some time to think things over again. It can
+be easy to become blinded by your own solution to a problem to the point
+that you don't realize that something is fundamentally wrong or, perhaps,
+you're not even solving the right problem.
+Andrew Morton has suggested that every review comment which does not result
+in a code change should result in an additional code comment instead; that
+can help future reviewers avoid the questions which came up the first time
+One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
+go away. They will not go away. If you repost code without having
+responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
+that your patches go nowhere.
+Speaking of reposting code: please bear in mind that reviewers are not
+going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time
+around. So it is always a good idea to remind reviewers of previously
+raised issues and how you dealt with them; the patch changelog is a good
+place for this kind of information. Reviewers should not have to search
+through list archives to familiarize themselves with what was said last
+time; if you help them get a running start, they will be in a better mood
+when they revisit your code.
+What if you've tried to do everything right and things still aren't going
+anywhere? Most technical disagreements can be resolved through discussion,
+but there are times when somebody simply has to make a decision. If you
+honestly believe that this decision is going against you wrongly, you can
+always try appealing to a higher power. As of this writing, that higher
+power tends to be Andrew Morton. Andrew has a great deal of respect in the
+kernel development community; he can often unjam a situation which seems to
+be hopelessly blocked. Appealing to Andrew should not be done lightly,
+though, and not before all other alternatives have been explored. And bear
+in mind, of course, that he may not agree with you either.
+If a patch is considered to be a good thing to add to the kernel, and once
+most of the review issues have been resolved, the next step is usually
+entry into a subsystem maintainer's tree. How that works varies from one
+subsystem to the next; each maintainer has his or her own way of doing
+things. In particular, there may be more than one tree - one, perhaps,
+dedicated to patches planned for the next merge window, and another for
+longer-term work.
+For patches applying to areas for which there is no obvious subsystem tree
+(memory management patches, for example), the default tree often ends up
+being -mm. Patches which affect multiple subsystems can also end up going
+through the -mm tree.
+Inclusion into a subsystem tree can bring a higher level of visibility to a
+patch. Now other developers working with that tree will get the patch by
+default. Subsystem trees typically feed linux-next as well, making their
+contents visible to the development community as a whole. At this point,
+there's a good chance that you will get more comments from a new set of
+reviewers; these comments need to be answered as in the previous round.
+What may also happen at this point, depending on the nature of your patch,
+is that conflicts with work being done by others turn up. In the worst
+case, heavy patch conflicts can result in some work being put on the back
+burner so that the remaining patches can be worked into shape and merged.
+Other times, conflict resolution will involve working with the other
+developers and, possibly, moving some patches between trees to ensure that
+everything applies cleanly. This work can be a pain, but count your
+blessings: before the advent of the linux-next tree, these conflicts often
+only turned up during the merge window and had to be addressed in a hurry.
+Now they can be resolved at leisure, before the merge window opens.
+Some day, if all goes well, you'll log on and see that your patch has been
+merged into the mainline kernel. Congratulations! Once the celebration is
+complete (and you have added yourself to the MAINTAINERS file), though, it
+is worth remembering an important little fact: the job still is not done.
+Merging into the mainline brings its own challenges.
+To begin with, the visibility of your patch has increased yet again. There
+may be a new round of comments from developers who had not been aware of
+the patch before. It may be tempting to ignore them, since there is no
+longer any question of your code being merged. Resist that temptation,
+though; you still need to be responsive to developers who have questions or
+More importantly, though: inclusion into the mainline puts your code into
+the hands of a much larger group of testers. Even if you have contributed
+a driver for hardware which is not yet available, you will be surprised by
+how many people will build your code into their kernels. And, of course,
+where there are testers, there will be bug reports.
+The worst sort of bug reports are regressions. If your patch causes a
+regression, you'll find an uncomfortable number of eyes upon you;
+regressions need to be fixed as soon as possible. If you are unwilling or
+unable to fix the regression (and nobody else does it for you), your patch
+will almost certainly be removed during the stabilization period. Beyond
+negating all of the work you have done to get your patch into the mainline,
+having a patch pulled as the result of a failure to fix a regression could
+well make it harder for you to get work merged in the future.
+After any regressions have been dealt with, there may be other, ordinary
+bugs to deal with. The stabilization period is your best opportunity to
+fix these bugs and ensure that your code's debut in a mainline kernel
+release is as solid as possible. So, please, answer bug reports, and fix
+the problems if at all possible. That's what the stabilization period is
+for; you can start creating cool new patches once any problems with the old
+ones have been taken care of.
+And don't forget that there are other milestones which may also create bug
+reports: the next mainline stable release, when prominent distributors pick
+up a version of the kernel containing your patch, etc. Continuing to
+respond to these reports is a matter of basic pride in your work. If that
+is insufficient motivation, though, it's also worth considering that the
+development community remembers developers who lose interest in their code
+after it's merged. The next time you post a patch, they will be evaluating
+it with the assumption that you will not be around to maintain it
+One day, you may open your mail client and see that somebody has mailed you
+a patch to your code. That is one of the advantages of having your code
+out there in the open, after all. If you agree with the patch, you can
+either forward it on to the subsystem maintainer (be sure to include a
+proper From: line so that the attribution is correct, and add a signoff of
+your own), or send an Acked-by: response back and let the original poster
+send it upward.
+If you disagree with the patch, send a polite response explaining why. If
+possible, tell the author what changes need to be made to make the patch
+acceptable to you. There is a certain resistance to merging patches which
+are opposed by the author and maintainer of the code, but it only goes so
+far. If you are seen as needlessly blocking good work, those patches will
+eventually flow around you and get into the mainline anyway. In the Linux
+kernel, nobody has absolute veto power over any code. Except maybe Linus.
+On very rare occasion, you may see something completely different: another
+developer posts a different solution to your problem. At that point,
+chances are that one of the two patches will not be merged, and "mine was
+here first" is not considered to be a compelling technical argument. If
+somebody else's patch displaces yours and gets into the mainline, there is
+really only one way to respond: be pleased that your problem got solved and
+get on with your work. Having one's work shoved aside in this manner can
+be hurtful and discouraging, but the community will remember your reaction
+long after they have forgotten whose patch actually got merged.