| .. _process_howto: |
| |
| HOWTO do Linux kernel development |
| ================================= |
| |
| This is the be-all, end-all document on this topic. It contains |
| instructions on how to become a Linux kernel developer and how to learn |
| to work with the Linux kernel development community. It tries to not |
| contain anything related to the technical aspects of kernel programming, |
| but will help point you in the right direction for that. |
| |
| If anything in this document becomes out of date, please send in patches |
| to the maintainer of this file, who is listed at the bottom of the |
| document. |
| |
| |
| Introduction |
| ------------ |
| |
| So, you want to learn how to become a Linux kernel developer? Or you |
| have been told by your manager, "Go write a Linux driver for this |
| device." This document's goal is to teach you everything you need to |
| know to achieve this by describing the process you need to go through, |
| and hints on how to work with the community. It will also try to |
| explain some of the reasons why the community works like it does. |
| |
| The kernel is written mostly in C, with some architecture-dependent |
| parts written in assembly. A good understanding of C is required for |
| kernel development. Assembly (any architecture) is not required unless |
| you plan to do low-level development for that architecture. Though they |
| are not a good substitute for a solid C education and/or years of |
| experience, the following books are good for, if anything, reference: |
| |
| - "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan and Ritchie [Prentice Hall] |
| - "Practical C Programming" by Steve Oualline [O'Reilly] |
| - "C: A Reference Manual" by Harbison and Steele [Prentice Hall] |
| |
| The kernel is written using GNU C and the GNU toolchain. While it |
| adheres to the ISO C89 standard, it uses a number of extensions that are |
| not featured in the standard. The kernel is a freestanding C |
| environment, with no reliance on the standard C library, so some |
| portions of the C standard are not supported. Arbitrary long long |
| divisions and floating point are not allowed. It can sometimes be |
| difficult to understand the assumptions the kernel has on the toolchain |
| and the extensions that it uses, and unfortunately there is no |
| definitive reference for them. Please check the gcc info pages (`info |
| gcc`) for some information on them. |
| |
| Please remember that you are trying to learn how to work with the |
| existing development community. It is a diverse group of people, with |
| high standards for coding, style and procedure. These standards have |
| been created over time based on what they have found to work best for |
| such a large and geographically dispersed team. Try to learn as much as |
| possible about these standards ahead of time, as they are well |
| documented; do not expect people to adapt to you or your company's way |
| of doing things. |
| |
| |
| Legal Issues |
| ------------ |
| |
| The Linux kernel source code is released under the GPL. Please see the file |
| COPYING in the main directory of the source tree. The Linux kernel licensing |
| rules and how to use `SPDX <https://spdx.org/>`_ identifiers in source code are |
| descibed in :ref:`Documentation/process/license-rules.rst <kernel_licensing>`. |
| If you have further questions about the license, please contact a lawyer, and do |
| not ask on the Linux kernel mailing list. The people on the mailing lists are |
| not lawyers, and you should not rely on their statements on legal matters. |
| |
| For common questions and answers about the GPL, please see: |
| |
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html |
| |
| |
| Documentation |
| ------------- |
| |
| The Linux kernel source tree has a large range of documents that are |
| invaluable for learning how to interact with the kernel community. When |
| new features are added to the kernel, it is recommended that new |
| documentation files are also added which explain how to use the feature. |
| When a kernel change causes the interface that the kernel exposes to |
| userspace to change, it is recommended that you send the information or |
| a patch to the manual pages explaining the change to the manual pages |
| maintainer at mtk.manpages@gmail.com, and CC the list |
| linux-api@vger.kernel.org. |
| |
| Here is a list of files that are in the kernel source tree that are |
| required reading: |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/README.rst <readme>` |
| This file gives a short background on the Linux kernel and describes |
| what is necessary to do to configure and build the kernel. People |
| who are new to the kernel should start here. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/changes.rst <changes>` |
| This file gives a list of the minimum levels of various software |
| packages that are necessary to build and run the kernel |
| successfully. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/coding-style.rst <codingstyle>` |
| This describes the Linux kernel coding style, and some of the |
| rationale behind it. All new code is expected to follow the |
| guidelines in this document. Most maintainers will only accept |
| patches if these rules are followed, and many people will only |
| review code if it is in the proper style. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` and :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-drivers.rst <submittingdrivers>` |
| These files describe in explicit detail how to successfully create |
| and send a patch, including (but not limited to): |
| |
| - Email contents |
| - Email format |
| - Who to send it to |
| |
| Following these rules will not guarantee success (as all patches are |
| 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" |
| https://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt |
| |
| "Linux kernel patch submission format" |
| http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst <stable_api_nonsense>` |
| This file describes the rationale behind the conscious decision to |
| not have a stable API within the kernel, including things like: |
| |
| - Subsystem shim-layers (for compatibility?) |
| - Driver portability between Operating Systems. |
| - Mitigating rapid change within the kernel source tree (or |
| preventing rapid change) |
| |
| This document is crucial for understanding the Linux development |
| philosophy and is very important for people moving to Linux from |
| development on other Operating Systems. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>` |
| If you feel you have found a security problem in the Linux kernel, |
| please follow the steps in this document to help notify the kernel |
| developers, and help solve the issue. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/management-style.rst <managementstyle>` |
| This document describes how Linux kernel maintainers operate and the |
| shared ethos behind their methodologies. This is important reading |
| for anyone new to kernel development (or anyone simply curious about |
| it), as it resolves a lot of common misconceptions and confusion |
| about the unique behavior of kernel maintainers. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` |
| This file describes the rules on how the stable kernel releases |
| happen, and what to do if you want to get a change into one of these |
| releases. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/kernel-docs.rst <kernel_docs>` |
| A list of external documentation that pertains to kernel |
| development. Please consult this list if you do not find what you |
| are looking for within the in-kernel documentation. |
| |
| :ref:`Documentation/process/applying-patches.rst <applying_patches>` |
| A good introduction describing exactly what a patch is and how to |
| apply it to the different development branches of the kernel. |
| |
| The kernel also has a large number of documents that can be |
| automatically generated from the source code itself or from |
| ReStructuredText markups (ReST), like this one. This includes a |
| full description of the in-kernel API, and rules on how to handle |
| locking properly. |
| |
| All such documents can be generated as PDF or HTML by running:: |
| |
| make pdfdocs |
| make htmldocs |
| |
| respectively from the main kernel source directory. |
| |
| The documents that uses ReST markup will be generated at Documentation/output. |
| They can also be generated on LaTeX and ePub formats with:: |
| |
| make latexdocs |
| make epubdocs |
| |
| Becoming A Kernel Developer |
| --------------------------- |
| |
| If you do not know anything about Linux kernel development, you should |
| look at the Linux KernelNewbies project: |
| |
| https://kernelnewbies.org |
| |
| It consists of a helpful mailing list where you can ask almost any type |
| of basic kernel development question (make sure to search the archives |
| first, before asking something that has already been answered in the |
| past.) It also has an IRC channel that you can use to ask questions in |
| real-time, and a lot of helpful documentation that is useful for |
| learning about Linux kernel development. |
| |
| The website has basic information about code organization, subsystems, |
| and current projects (both in-tree and out-of-tree). It also describes |
| some basic logistical information, like how to compile a kernel and |
| apply a patch. |
| |
| If you do not know where you want to start, but you want to look for |
| some task to start doing to join into the kernel development community, |
| go to the Linux Kernel Janitor's project: |
| |
| https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelJanitors |
| |
| It is a great place to start. It describes a list of relatively simple |
| problems that need to be cleaned up and fixed within the Linux kernel |
| source tree. Working with the developers in charge of this project, you |
| will learn the basics of getting your patch into the Linux kernel tree, |
| and possibly be pointed in the direction of what to go work on next, if |
| you do not already have an idea. |
| |
| Before making any actual modifications to the Linux kernel code, it is |
| imperative to understand how the code in question works. For this |
| purpose, nothing is better than reading through it directly (most tricky |
| bits are commented well), perhaps even with the help of specialized |
| tools. One such tool that is particularly recommended is the Linux |
| Cross-Reference project, which is able to present source code in a |
| self-referential, indexed webpage format. An excellent up-to-date |
| repository of the kernel code may be found at: |
| |
| https://elixir.bootlin.com/ |
| |
| |
| The development process |
| ----------------------- |
| |
| Linux kernel development process currently consists of a few different |
| main kernel "branches" and lots of different subsystem-specific kernel |
| branches. These different branches are: |
| |
| - Linus's mainline tree |
| - Various stable trees with multiple major numbers |
| - Subsystem-specific trees |
| - linux-next integration testing tree |
| |
| Mainline tree |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| Mainline tree are maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found at |
| https://kernel.org or in the repo. Its development process is as follows: |
| |
| - As soon as a new kernel is released a two weeks window is open, |
| during this period of time maintainers can submit big diffs to |
| Linus, usually the patches that have already been included in the |
| linux-next for a few weeks. The preferred way to submit big changes |
| is using git (the kernel's source management tool, more information |
| can be found at https://git-scm.com/) but plain patches are also just |
| fine. |
| - After two weeks a -rc1 kernel is released and the focus is on making the |
| new kernel as rock solid as possible. Most of the patches at this point |
| should fix a regression. Bugs that have always existed are not |
| regressions, so only push these kinds of fixes if they are important. |
| Please note that a whole new driver (or filesystem) might be accepted |
| after -rc1 because there is no risk of causing regressions with such a |
| change as long as the change is self-contained and does not affect areas |
| outside of the code that is being added. git can be used to send |
| patches to Linus after -rc1 is released, but the patches need to also be |
| sent to a public mailing list for review. |
| - A new -rc is released whenever Linus deems the current git tree to |
| be in a reasonably sane state adequate for testing. The goal is to |
| release a new -rc kernel every week. |
| - Process continues until the kernel is considered "ready", the |
| process should last around 6 weeks. |
| |
| It is worth mentioning what Andrew Morton wrote on the linux-kernel |
| mailing list about kernel releases: |
| |
| *"Nobody knows when a kernel will be released, because it's |
| released according to perceived bug status, not according to a |
| preconceived timeline."* |
| |
| Various stable trees with multiple major numbers |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| Kernels with 3-part versions are -stable kernels. They contain |
| relatively small and critical fixes for security problems or significant |
| regressions discovered in a given major mainline release, with the first |
| 2-part of version number are the same correspondingly. |
| |
| This is the recommended branch for users who want the most recent stable |
| kernel and are not interested in helping test development/experimental |
| versions. |
| |
| Stable trees are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@vger.kernel.org>, and |
| are released as needs dictate. The normal release period is approximately |
| two weeks, but it can be longer if there are no pressing problems. A |
| security-related problem, instead, can cause a release to happen almost |
| instantly. |
| |
| The file :ref:`Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst <stable_kernel_rules>` |
| in the kernel tree documents what kinds of changes are acceptable for |
| the -stable tree, and how the release process works. |
| |
| Subsystem-specific trees |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| The maintainers of the various kernel subsystems --- and also many |
| kernel subsystem developers --- expose their current state of |
| development in source repositories. That way, others can see what is |
| happening in the different areas of the kernel. In areas where |
| development is rapid, a developer may be asked to base his submissions |
| onto such a subsystem kernel tree so that conflicts between the |
| submission and other already ongoing work are avoided. |
| |
| Most of these repositories are git trees, but there are also other SCMs |
| in use, or patch queues being published as quilt series. Addresses of |
| these subsystem repositories are listed in the MAINTAINERS file. Many |
| of them can be browsed at https://git.kernel.org/. |
| |
| Before a proposed patch is committed to such a subsystem tree, it is |
| subject to review which primarily happens on mailing lists (see the |
| respective section below). For several kernel subsystems, this review |
| process is tracked with the tool patchwork. Patchwork offers a web |
| interface which shows patch postings, any comments on a patch or |
| revisions to it, and maintainers can mark patches as under review, |
| accepted, or rejected. Most of these patchwork sites are listed at |
| https://patchwork.kernel.org/. |
| |
| linux-next integration testing tree |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline tree, |
| they need to be integration-tested. For this purpose, a special |
| testing repository exists into which virtually all subsystem trees are |
| pulled on an almost daily basis: |
| |
| https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git |
| |
| This way, the linux-next gives a summary outlook onto what will be |
| expected to go into the mainline kernel at the next merge period. |
| Adventurous testers are very welcome to runtime-test the linux-next. |
| |
| |
| Bug Reporting |
| ------------- |
| |
| https://bugzilla.kernel.org is where the Linux kernel developers track kernel |
| bugs. Users are encouraged to report all bugs that they find in this |
| tool. For details on how to use the kernel bugzilla, please see: |
| |
| https://bugzilla.kernel.org/page.cgi?id=faq.html |
| |
| The file :ref:`admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst <reportingbugs>` |
| in the main kernel source directory has a good |
| template for how to report a possible kernel bug, and details what kind |
| of information is needed by the kernel developers to help track down the |
| problem. |
| |
| |
| Managing bug reports |
| -------------------- |
| |
| One of the best ways to put into practice your hacking skills is by fixing |
| bugs reported by other people. Not only you will help to make the kernel |
| more stable, you'll learn to fix real world problems and you will improve |
| your skills, and other developers will be aware of your presence. Fixing |
| bugs is one of the best ways to get merits among other developers, because |
| not many people like wasting time fixing other people's bugs. |
| |
| To work in the already reported bug reports, go to https://bugzilla.kernel.org. |
| |
| |
| Mailing lists |
| ------------- |
| |
| As some of the above documents describe, the majority of the core kernel |
| developers participate on the Linux Kernel Mailing list. Details on how |
| to subscribe and unsubscribe from the list can be found at: |
| |
| http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-kernel |
| |
| There are archives of the mailing list on the web in many different |
| places. Use a search engine to find these archives. For example: |
| |
| http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel |
| |
| It is highly recommended that you search the archives about the topic |
| you want to bring up, before you post it to the list. A lot of things |
| already discussed in detail are only recorded at the mailing list |
| archives. |
| |
| Most of the individual kernel subsystems also have their own separate |
| mailing list where they do their development efforts. See the |
| MAINTAINERS file for a list of what these lists are for the different |
| groups. |
| |
| Many of the lists are hosted on kernel.org. Information on them can be |
| found at: |
| |
| http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html |
| |
| Please remember to follow good behavioral habits when using the lists. |
| Though a bit cheesy, the following URL has some simple guidelines for |
| interacting with the list (or any list): |
| |
| http://www.albion.com/netiquette/ |
| |
| If multiple people respond to your mail, the CC: list of recipients may |
| get pretty large. Don't remove anybody from the CC: list without a good |
| reason, or don't reply only to the list address. Get used to receiving the |
| mail twice, one from the sender and the one from the list, and don't try |
| to tune that by adding fancy mail-headers, people will not like it. |
| |
| Remember to keep the context and the attribution of your replies intact, |
| keep the "John Kernelhacker wrote ...:" lines at the top of your reply, and |
| add your statements between the individual quoted sections instead of |
| writing at the top of the mail. |
| |
| If you add patches to your mail, make sure they are plain readable text |
| as stated in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`. |
| Kernel developers don't want to deal with |
| attachments or compressed patches; they may want to comment on |
| individual lines of your patch, which works only that way. Make sure you |
| use a mail program that does not mangle spaces and tab characters. A |
| good first test is to send the mail to yourself and try to apply your |
| own patch by yourself. If that doesn't work, get your mail program fixed |
| or change it until it works. |
| |
| Above all, please remember to show respect to other subscribers. |
| |
| |
| Working with the community |
| -------------------------- |
| |
| The goal of the kernel community is to provide the best possible kernel |
| there is. When you submit a patch for acceptance, it will be reviewed |
| on its technical merits and those alone. So, what should you be |
| expecting? |
| |
| - criticism |
| - comments |
| - requests for change |
| - requests for justification |
| - silence |
| |
| Remember, this is part of getting your patch into the kernel. You have |
| to be able to take criticism and comments about your patches, evaluate |
| them at a technical level and either rework your patches or provide |
| clear and concise reasoning as to why those changes should not be made. |
| If there are no responses to your posting, wait a few days and try |
| again, sometimes things get lost in the huge volume. |
| |
| What should you not do? |
| |
| - expect your patch to be accepted without question |
| - become defensive |
| - ignore comments |
| - resubmit the patch without making any of the requested changes |
| |
| In a community that is looking for the best technical solution possible, |
| there will always be differing opinions on how beneficial a patch is. |
| You have to be cooperative, and willing to adapt your idea to fit within |
| the kernel. Or at least be willing to prove your idea is worth it. |
| Remember, being wrong is acceptable as long as you are willing to work |
| toward a solution that is right. |
| |
| It is normal that the answers to your first patch might simply be a list |
| of a dozen things you should correct. This does **not** imply that your |
| patch will not be accepted, and it is **not** meant against you |
| personally. Simply correct all issues raised against your patch and |
| resend it. |
| |
| |
| Differences between the kernel community and corporate structures |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| The kernel community works differently than most traditional corporate |
| development environments. Here are a list of things that you can try to |
| do to avoid problems: |
| |
| Good things to say regarding your proposed changes: |
| |
| - "This solves multiple problems." |
| - "This deletes 2000 lines of code." |
| - "Here is a patch that explains what I am trying to describe." |
| - "I tested it on 5 different architectures..." |
| - "Here is a series of small patches that..." |
| - "This increases performance on typical machines..." |
| |
| Bad things you should avoid saying: |
| |
| - "We did it this way in AIX/ptx/Solaris, so therefore it must be |
| good..." |
| - "I've being doing this for 20 years, so..." |
| - "This is required for my company to make money" |
| - "This is for our Enterprise product line." |
| - "Here is my 1000 page design document that describes my idea" |
| - "I've been working on this for 6 months..." |
| - "Here's a 5000 line patch that..." |
| - "I rewrote all of the current mess, and here it is..." |
| - "I have a deadline, and this patch needs to be applied now." |
| |
| Another way the kernel community is different than most traditional |
| software engineering work environments is the faceless nature of |
| interaction. One benefit of using email and irc as the primary forms of |
| communication is the lack of discrimination based on gender or race. |
| The Linux kernel work environment is accepting of women and minorities |
| because all you are is an email address. The international aspect also |
| helps to level the playing field because you can't guess gender based on |
| a person's name. A man may be named Andrea and a woman may be named Pat. |
| Most women who have worked in the Linux kernel and have expressed an |
| opinion have had positive experiences. |
| |
| The language barrier can cause problems for some people who are not |
| comfortable with English. A good grasp of the language can be needed in |
| order to get ideas across properly on mailing lists, so it is |
| recommended that you check your emails to make sure they make sense in |
| English before sending them. |
| |
| |
| Break up your changes |
| --------------------- |
| |
| The Linux kernel community does not gladly accept large chunks of code |
| dropped on it all at once. The changes need to be properly introduced, |
| discussed, and broken up into tiny, individual portions. This is almost |
| the exact opposite of what companies are used to doing. Your proposal |
| should also be introduced very early in the development process, so that |
| you can receive feedback on what you are doing. It also lets the |
| community feel that you are working with them, and not simply using them |
| as a dumping ground for your feature. However, don't send 50 emails at |
| one time to a mailing list, your patch series should be smaller than |
| that almost all of the time. |
| |
| The reasons for breaking things up are the following: |
| |
| 1) Small patches increase the likelihood that your patches will be |
| applied, since they don't take much time or effort to verify for |
| correctness. A 5 line patch can be applied by a maintainer with |
| barely a second glance. However, a 500 line patch may take hours to |
| review for correctness (the time it takes is exponentially |
| proportional to the size of the patch, or something). |
| |
| Small patches also make it very easy to debug when something goes |
| wrong. It's much easier to back out patches one by one than it is |
| to dissect a very large patch after it's been applied (and broken |
| something). |
| |
| 2) It's important not only to send small patches, but also to rewrite |
| and simplify (or simply re-order) patches before submitting them. |
| |
| Here is an analogy from kernel developer Al Viro: |
| |
| *"Think of a teacher grading homework from a math student. The |
| teacher does not want to see the student's trials and errors |
| before they came up with the solution. They want to see the |
| cleanest, most elegant answer. A good student knows this, and |
| would never submit her intermediate work before the final |
| solution.* |
| |
| *The same is true of kernel development. The maintainers and |
| reviewers do not want to see the thought process behind the |
| solution to the problem one is solving. They want to see a |
| simple and elegant solution."* |
| |
| It may be challenging to keep the balance between presenting an elegant |
| solution and working together with the community and discussing your |
| unfinished work. Therefore it is good to get early in the process to |
| get feedback to improve your work, but also keep your changes in small |
| chunks that they may get already accepted, even when your whole task is |
| not ready for inclusion now. |
| |
| Also realize that it is not acceptable to send patches for inclusion |
| that are unfinished and will be "fixed up later." |
| |
| |
| Justify your change |
| ------------------- |
| |
| Along with breaking up your patches, it is very important for you to let |
| the Linux community know why they should add this change. New features |
| must be justified as being needed and useful. |
| |
| |
| Document your change |
| -------------------- |
| |
| When sending in your patches, pay special attention to what you say in |
| the text in your email. This information will become the ChangeLog |
| information for the patch, and will be preserved for everyone to see for |
| all time. It should describe the patch completely, containing: |
| |
| - why the change is necessary |
| - the overall design approach in the patch |
| - implementation details |
| - testing results |
| |
| For more details on what this should all look like, please see the |
| ChangeLog section of the document: |
| |
| "The Perfect Patch" |
| http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt |
| |
| |
| All of these things are sometimes very hard to do. It can take years to |
| perfect these practices (if at all). It's a continuous process of |
| improvement that requires a lot of patience and determination. But |
| don't give up, it's possible. Many have done it before, and each had to |
| start exactly where you are now. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| ---------- |
| |
| Thanks to Paolo Ciarrocchi who allowed the "Development Process" |
| (https://lwn.net/Articles/94386/) section |
| to be based on text he had written, and to Randy Dunlap and Gerrit |
| Huizenga for some of the list of things you should and should not say. |
| Also thanks to Pat Mochel, Hanna Linder, Randy Dunlap, Kay Sievers, |
| Vojtech Pavlik, Jan Kara, Josh Boyer, Kees Cook, Andrew Morton, Andi |
| Kleen, Vadim Lobanov, Jesper Juhl, Adrian Bunk, Keri Harris, Frans Pop, |
| David A. Wheeler, Junio Hamano, Michael Kerrisk, and Alex Shepard for |
| their review, comments, and contributions. Without their help, this |
| document would not have been possible. |
| |
| |
| |
| Maintainer: Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com> |