Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesLinux kernel patches are more likely to get a fair, useful review when they solve a clearly explained problem, reach the right subsystem maintainers, and arrive with proportionate evidence and testing. No format or checklist guarantees a merge: maintainers decide whether a change fits their subsystem, and accepted work still passes through a wider integration process.
This guide is specifically about contributing to the Linux kernel. Other projects may use different submission systems and standards.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Start with the problem, not the implementation
Explain what is broken or missing, who it affects, and what observable consequence makes the change necessary. Then describe the fix in plain English and technically. A reviewer should be able to understand the motivation without reconstructing it from the code.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Include useful evidence where it applies, such as reproducible circumstances or relevant diagnostics. If you claim a performance or size improvement, provide measurements and explain any trade-offs. Avoid broad benefit claims that your evidence cannot support.
#1 Best Overall
Shape a patch reviewers can assess
Keep each patch focused
Prefer one coherent problem per patch. Combining unrelated changes makes it harder to assess correctness, discuss trade-offs, and identify which part needs revision.
Write a self-contained commit message
Use a concise subject that describes the change. In the body, explain why it is needed, what it changes, and how the behavior can be verified. The commit message becomes part of the permanent record, so it should make sense without relying on the email thread.
Rank #2
Make patch series easy to follow
When changes depend on one another, send them in a clear order and number the patches. Explain dependencies so reviewers can see why the series is structured that way. Put notes about revisions after the --- separator; that material is for reviewers and should not become part of the commit message.
Use attribution tags accurately. Follow the kernel guidance on getting permission before adding someone else’s review or test tag. If a substantial revision means earlier review or testing no longer applies, remove the affected tag.
Find the right maintainers and submission route
Kernel development is organized by subsystem. Identify the relevant subsystem, its maintainers, and any submission instructions in the kernel patch-submission guide. Sending a patch directly to a top-level maintainer is not necessarily the correct route.
The kernel guide describes email submission and recommends inline, plain-text patches so reviewers can comment on exact lines; it presents git send-email as a practical sending method. Keep recipients relevant rather than adding unrelated people or lists. User-space interface changes have additional documentation and mailing-list expectations, while security issues have a separate reporting path.
Run checks that fit the change
Validation should match the code path, configurations, and architectures affected. The kernel patch submission checklist covers the following checks and considerations:
Recommended Free Tools
- Review the kernel style guidance and run
scripts/checkpatch.pl. A clean style check is not proof that the code is correct. - Use proper declarations rather than relying on incidental header inclusion, and comment memory-barrier logic where needed.
- Review relevant Kconfig combinations and document new or changed APIs and interfaces in the required locations.
- Run sparse where applicable, build relevant configurations, and test affected code paths.
- Consider cross-architecture builds and runtime checks when they are relevant to the change.
Report only checks you actually performed. A focused test result is more useful than implying broader validation than you have.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Respond to review and keep the patch current
Review is part of contributing, not a hurdle to get past. Reply to comments, revise the patch where appropriate, and make your reasoning clear when you do not adopt a suggestion. This leaves reviewers able to assess what changed and why.
Maintainer acceptance is meaningful progress, but it does not by itself ensure mainline inclusion. The kernel development-process guide describes the wider integration process. If a patch remains unmerged, keep it current with the relevant kernel base and continue the appropriate review conversation, especially when it falls behind ongoing changes. After a merge, stay attentive to problems revealed by later testing or maintenance.
Disclose meaningful tool-generated contributions
The kernel’s tool-generated content guidance calls for transparency when a meaningful amount of a contribution was created by a tool rather than a person in the Signed-off-by chain. In cover letters and changelogs, explain the tools used, the portions affected, and relevant testing. You remain responsible for the submission: understand the full change and be prepared to defend it.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
