[PATCH] ipw2100/ipw2200: jiffies_round -> jiffies_round_relative

[safe/jmp/linux-2.6] / Documentation / SubmittingPatches

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index d91125a..a30dd44 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -122,11 +122,11 @@ then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
 
 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, probabally
+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/patchcheck.pl).  You should
+checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl).  You should
 be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch.
 
 
@@ -340,8 +340,32 @@ now, but you can do this to mark internal company procedures or just
 point out some special detail about the sign-off. 
 
 
+13) When to use Acked-by:
 
-13) The canonical patch format
+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.
+
+
+14) The canonical patch format
 
 The canonical patch subject line is:
 
@@ -440,9 +464,25 @@ section Linus Computer Science 101.
 Nuff said.  If your code deviates too much from this, it is likely
 to be rejected without further review, and without comment.
 
+Once 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).  You should be able to justify all
-violations that remain in your patch.
+(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.
 
 
 
@@ -520,7 +560,7 @@ 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://sosdg.org/~coywolf/lxr/source/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>