1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
4 <meta http-equiv=
"content-type" content=
"text/html; charset=utf-8">
5 <title>Submitting patches
</title>
6 <link rel=
"stylesheet" type=
"text/css" href=
"mesa.css">
11 <h1>The Mesa
3D Graphics Library
</h1>
14 <iframe src=
"contents.html"></iframe>
17 <h1>Submitting patches
</h1>
21 <li><a href=
"#guidelines">Basic guidelines
</a>
22 <li><a href=
"#formatting">Patch formatting
</a>
23 <li><a href=
"#testing">Testing Patches
</a>
24 <li><a href=
"#mailing">Mailing Patches
</a>
25 <li><a href=
"#reviewing">Reviewing Patches
</a>
26 <li><a href=
"#nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch
</a>
27 <li><a href=
"#criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch
</a>
28 <li><a href=
"#backports">Sending backports for the stable branch
</a>
29 <li><a href=
"#gittips">Git tips
</a>
32 <h2 id=
"guidelines">Basic guidelines
</h2>
35 <li>Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes (except,
36 perhaps, in very trivial cases.)
37 <li>Code patches should follow Mesa
38 <a href=
"codingstyle.html" target=
"_parent">coding conventions
</a>.
39 <li>Whenever possible, patches should only effect individual Mesa/Gallium
41 <li>Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable (see
42 <code>git bisect
</code>.)
43 <li>Patches should be properly
<a href=
"#formatting">formatted
</a>.
44 <li>Patches should be sufficiently
<a href=
"#testing">tested
</a> before submitting.
45 <li>Patches should be submitted to
<a href=
"#mailing">mesa-dev
</a>
46 for
<a href=
"#reviewing">review
</a> using
<code>git send-email
</code>.
50 <h2 id=
"formatting">Patch formatting
</h2>
53 <li>Lines should be limited to
75 characters or less so that git logs
54 displayed in
80-column terminals avoid line wrapping. Note that git
55 log uses
4 spaces of indentation (
4 +
75 < 80).
56 <li>The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change prefixed
57 with a module name. Examples:
59 mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG
61 gallium: add PIPE_CAP_DEVICE_RESET_STATUS_QUERY
63 i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration.
65 <li>Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail,
66 if needed. For example:
68 i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code.
70 This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code
71 for Sandybridge (commit
077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this
72 is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any
75 <li>A
"Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged either.
76 <li>If a patch addresses a bugzilla issue, that should be noted in the
77 patch comment. For example:
79 Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=
89689
81 <li>If a patch addresses a issue introduced with earlier commit, that should be
82 noted in the patch comment. For example:
84 Fixes: d7b3707c612
"util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory"
86 <li>If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review
87 process, they should be noted such as in this example:
89 st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4)
91 if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8
92 there is no requirement to support native S8 for this,
93 the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine.
95 v2: fold fixes from Marek in:
96 a) put S8 last in the list
97 b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable
98 fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format
99 for picking the format for the texture view.
100 v3: hit fallback for getteximage
101 v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia)
103 <li>If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this:
105 Tested-by: Joe Hacker
<jhacker@foo.com
>
107 <li>If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone,
108 that should be documented with:
110 Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker
<jhacker@foo.com
>
111 Acked-by: Joe Hacker
<jhacker@foo.com
>
113 <li>If sending later revision of a patch, add all the tags - ack, r-b,
114 Cc: mesa-stable and/or other. This provides reviewers with quick feedback if the
115 patch has already been reviewed.
116 <li>In order for your patch to reach the prospective reviewer easier/faster,
117 use the script scripts/get_reviewer.pl to get a list of individuals and include
120 Please use common sense and do
<strong>not
</strong> blindly add everyone.
123 $ scripts/get_reviewer.pl --help # to get the help screen
124 $ scripts/get_reviewer.pl -f src/egl/drivers/dri2/platform_android.c
125 Rob Herring
<robh@kernel.org
> (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,added_lines:
188/
700=
27%,removed_lines:
58/
283=
20%)
126 Tomasz Figa
<tfiga@chromium.org
> (reviewer:ANDROID EGL SUPPORT,authored:
12/
41=
29%,added_lines:
308/
700=
44%,removed_lines:
115/
283=
41%)
127 Emil Velikov
<emil.l.velikov@gmail.com
> (authored:
13/
41=
32%,removed_lines:
76/
283=
27%)
133 <h2 id=
"testing">Testing Patches
</h2>
136 It should go without saying that patches must be tested. In general,
137 do whatever testing is prudent.
141 You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches.
142 The test suite can be run using the 'make check' command. All tests
143 must pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have
144 to update the tests themselves.
148 Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with
149 <a href=
"https://piglit.freedesktop.org">Piglit
</a> and/or
150 <a href=
"https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/deqp/">dEQP
</a>
151 to check for regressions.
155 As mentioned at the begining, patches should be bisectable.
156 A good way to test this is to make use of the `git rebase` command,
157 to run your tests on each commit. Assuming your branch is based off
158 <code>origin/master
</code>, you can run:
160 $ git rebase --interactive --exec
"make check" origin/master
162 replacing
<code>"make check"</code> with whatever other test you want to
167 <h2 id=
"mailing">Mailing Patches
</h2>
170 Patches should be sent to the mesa-dev mailing list for review:
171 <a href=
"https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev">
172 mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
</a>.
173 When submitting a patch make sure to use
174 <a href=
"https://git-scm.com/docs/git-send-email">git send-email
</a>
175 rather than attaching patches to emails. Sending patches as
176 attachments prevents people from being able to provide in-line review
181 When submitting follow-up patches you can use --in-reply-to to make v2, v3,
182 etc patches show up as replies to the originals. This usually works well
183 when you're sending out updates to individual patches (as opposed to
184 re-sending the whole series). Using --in-reply-to makes
185 it harder for reviewers to accidentally review old patches.
189 When submitting follow-up patches you should also login to
190 <a href=
"https://patchwork.freedesktop.org">patchwork
</a> and change the
191 state of your old patches to Superseded.
195 Some companies' mail server automatically append a legal disclaimer,
196 usually containing something along the lines of
"The information in this
197 email is confidential" and
"distribution is strictly prohibited".
<br/>
198 These legal notices prevent us from being able to accept your patch,
199 rendering the whole process pointless. Please make sure these are
200 disabled before sending your patches. (Note that you may need to contact
201 your email administrator for this.)
204 <h2 id=
"reviewing">Reviewing Patches
</h2>
207 When you've reviewed a patch on the mailing list, please be unambiguous
208 about your review. That is, state either
211 Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker
<jhacker@foo.com
>
215 Acked-by: Joe Hacker
<jhacker@foo.com
>
218 Rather than saying just
"LGTM" or
"Seems OK".
222 If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like:
225 With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker
<jhacker@foo.com
>
228 which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long
229 as the issues are resolved first.
233 <h2 id=
"nominations">Nominating a commit for a stable branch
</h2>
236 There are three ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable branch and
240 <li> By adding the Cc: mesa-stable@ tag as described below.
241 <li> Sending the commit ID (as seen in master branch) to the mesa-stable@ mailing list.
242 <li> Forwarding the patch from the mesa-dev@ mailing list.
246 Note: resending patch identical to one on mesa-dev@ or one that differs only
247 by the extra mesa-stable@ tag is
<strong>not
</strong> recommended.
250 If you are not the author of the original patch, please Cc: them in your
255 <h3 id=
"thetag">The stable tag
</h3>
258 If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch,
259 you should add an appropriate note to the commit message.
263 Here are some examples of such a note:
266 <li>CC:
<mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org
></li>
269 Simply adding the CC to the mesa-stable list address is adequate to nominate
270 the commit for all the active stable branches. If the commit is not applicable
271 for said branch the stable-release manager will reply stating so.
273 This
"CC" syntax for patch nomination will cause patches to automatically be
274 copied to the mesa-stable@ mailing list when you use
"git send-email" to send
275 patches to the mesa-dev@ mailing list. If you prefer using --suppress-cc that
276 won't have any negative effect on the patch nomination.
279 Note: by removing the tag [as the commit is pushed] the patch is
280 <strong>explicitly
</strong> rejected from inclusion in the stable branch(es).
282 Thus, drop the line
<strong>only
</strong> if you want to cancel the nomination.
285 Alternatively, if one uses the
"Fixes" tag as described in the
"Patch formatting"
286 section, it nominates a commit for all active stable branches that include the
287 commit that is referred to.
289 <h2 id=
"criteria">Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch
</h2>
291 Mesa has a designated release manager for each stable branch, and the release
292 manager is the only developer that should be pushing changes to these branches.
293 Everyone else should nominate patches using the mechanism described above.
295 The following rules define which patches are accepted and which are not. The
296 stable-release manager is also given broad discretion in rejecting patches
297 that have been nominated.
300 <li>Patch must conform with the
<a href=
"#guidelines">Basic guidelines
</a></li>
302 <li>Patch must have landed in master first. In case where the original
303 patch is too large and/or otherwise contradicts with the rules set within, a
304 backport is appropriate.
</li>
306 <li>It must not introduce a regression - be that build or runtime wise.
308 Note: If the regression is due to faulty piglit/dEQP/CTS/other test the
309 latter must be fixed first. A reference to the offending test(s) and
310 respective fix(es) should be provided in the nominated patch.
</li>
312 <li>Patch cannot be larger than
100 lines.
</li>
314 <li>Patches that move code around with no functional change should be
317 <li>Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.
319 Note: An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling
"features". For
320 example,
<a href=
"#backports">backports
</a> of new code to support a
321 newly-developed hardware product can be accepted if they can be reasonably
322 determined not to have effects on other hardware.
</li>
324 <li>Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has Reviewed-by,
325 Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the author.
</li>
327 <li>Performance patches are considered only if they provide information
328 about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use numbers
329 to represent your measurements.
</li>
332 If the patch complies with the rules it will be
333 <a href=
"releasing.html#pickntest">cherry-picked
</a>. Alternatively the release
334 manager will reply to the patch in question stating why the patch has been
335 rejected or would request a backport.
337 A summary of all the picked/rejected patches will be presented in the
338 <a href=
"releasing.html#prerelease">pre-release
</a> announcement.
340 The stable-release manager may at times need to force-push changes to the
341 stable branches, for example, to drop a previously-picked patch that was later
342 identified as causing a regression). These force-pushes may cause changes to
343 be lost from the stable branch if developers push things directly. Consider
346 <h2 id=
"backports">Sending backports for the stable branch
</h2>
347 By default merge conflicts are resolved by the stable-release manager. In which
348 case he/she should provide a comment about the changes required, alongside the
349 <code>Conflicts
</code> section. Summary of which will be provided in the
350 <a href=
"releasing.html#prerelease">pre-release
</a> announcement.
352 Developers are interested in sending backports are recommended to use either a
353 <code>[BACKPORT #branch]
</code> subject prefix or provides similar information
354 within the commit summary.
356 <h2 id=
"gittips">Git tips
</h2>
359 <li><code>git rebase -i ...
</code> is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
360 <li>Apply a fixup to commit FOO.
363 git commit --fixup=FOO
364 git rebase -i --autosquash ...
366 <li>Test for build breakage between patches e.g last
8 commits.
368 git rebase -i
--exec=
"make -j4" HEAD~
8
370 <li>Sets the default mailing address for your repo.
372 git config --local sendemail.to mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
374 <li> Add version to subject line of patch series in this case for the last
8
375 commits before sending.
377 git send-email
--subject-prefix=
"PATCH v4" HEAD~
8
378 git send-email -v4 @~
8 # shorter version, inherited from git format-patch
380 <li> Configure git to use the get_reviewer.pl script interactively. Thus you
381 can avoid adding the world to the CC list.
383 git config sendemail.cccmd
"./scripts/get_reviewer.pl -i"