Merge branch 'docs-next' of git://git.lwn.net/linux-2.6

* 'docs-next' of git://git.lwn.net/linux-2.6:
  Document the debugfs API
  Documentation: Add "how to write a good patch summary" to SubmittingPatches
  SubmittingPatches: fix typo
  docs: Encourage better changelogs in the development process document
  Document Reported-by in SubmittingPatches

3 files changed, 246 insertions, 19 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index f309d3c6221c..6c456835c1fd 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ Be as specific as possible.  The WORST descriptions possible include
 things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
 includes updates for subsystem X.  Please apply."
 
+The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
+form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
+system, git, as a "commit log".  See #15, below.
+
 If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
 need to split up your patch.  See #3, next.
 
@@ -405,7 +409,14 @@ person it names.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
 have been included in the discussion
 
 
-14) Using Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:
+14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by: and Reviewed-by:
+
+If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider adding a
+Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their contribution.  Please
+note that this tag should not be added without the reporter's permission,
+especially if the problem was not reported in a public forum.  That said,
+if we diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be
+inspired to help us again in the future.
 
 A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
 some environment) by the person named.  This tag informs maintainers that
@@ -444,7 +455,7 @@ offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch.  This tag serves to give credit to
 reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been
 done on the patch.  Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to
 understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally
-increase the liklihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
+increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel.
 
 
 15) The canonical patch format
@@ -485,12 +496,33 @@ phrase" should not be a filename.  Do not use the same "summary
 phrase" for every patch in a whole patch series (where a "patch
 series" is an ordered sequence of multiple, related patches).
 
-Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes
-a globally-unique identifier for that patch.  It propagates
-all the way into the git changelog.  The "summary phrase" may
-later be used in developer discussions which refer to the patch.
-People will want to google for the "summary phrase" to read
-discussion regarding that patch.
+Bear in mind that the "summary phrase" of your email becomes a
+globally-unique identifier for that patch.  It propagates all the way
+into the git changelog.  The "summary phrase" may later be used in
+developer discussions which refer to the patch.  People will want to
+google for the "summary phrase" to read discussion regarding that
+patch.  It will also be the only thing that people may quickly see
+when, two or three months later, they are going through perhaps
+thousands of patches using tools such as "gitk" or "git log
+--oneline".
+
+For these reasons, the "summary" must be no more than 70-75
+characters, and it must describe both what the patch changes, as well
+as why the patch might be necessary.  It is challenging to be both
+succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary
+should do.
+
+The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square
+brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>".  The tags are not
+considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
+should be treated.  Common tags might include a version descriptor if
+the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
+comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for
+comments.  If there are four patches in a patch series the individual
+patches may be numbered like this: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4.  This assures
+that developers understand the order in which the patches should be
+applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in
+the patch series.
 
 A couple of example Subjects:
 
@@ -510,19 +542,31 @@ the patch author in the changelog.
 The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
 changelog, so should make sense to a competent reader who has long
 since forgotten the immediate details of the discussion that might
-have led to this patch.
+have led to this patch.  Including symptoms of the failure which the
+patch addresses (kernel log messages, oops messages, etc.) is
+especially useful for people who might be searching the commit logs
+looking for the applicable patch.  If a patch fixes a compile failure,
+it may not be necessary to include _all_ of the compile failures; just
+enough that it is likely that someone searching for the patch can find
+it.  As in the "summary phrase", it is important to be both succinct as
+well as descriptive.
 
 The "---" marker line serves the essential purpose of marking for patch
 handling tools where the changelog message ends.
 
 One good use for the additional comments after the "---" marker is for
-a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of inserted
-and deleted lines per file.  A diffstat is especially useful on bigger
-patches.  Other comments relevant only to the moment or the maintainer,
-not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go here.
-Use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from the
-top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal space
-(easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
+a diffstat, to show what files have changed, and the number of
+inserted and deleted lines per file.  A diffstat is especially useful
+on bigger patches.  Other comments relevant only to the moment or the
+maintainer, not suitable for the permanent changelog, should also go
+here.  A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
+which describe what has changed between the v1 and v2 version of the
+patch.
+
+If you are going to include a diffstat after the "---" marker, please
+use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from
+the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal
+space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
 
 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
 references.
diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/5.Posting b/Documentation/development-process/5.Posting
index dd48132a74dd..f622c1e9f0f9 100644
--- a/Documentation/development-process/5.Posting
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/5.Posting
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ which takes quite a bit of time and thought after the "real work" has been
 done.  When done properly, though, it is time well spent.
 
 
-5.4: PATCH FORMATTING
+5.4: PATCH FORMATTING AND CHANGELOGS
 
 So now you have a perfect series of patches for posting, but the work is
 not done quite yet.  Each patch needs to be formatted into a message which
@@ -146,8 +146,33 @@ that end, each patch will be composed of the following:
  - One or more tag lines, with, at a minimum, one Signed-off-by: line from
    the author of the patch.  Tags will be described in more detail below.
 
-The above three items should, normally, be the text used when committing
-the change to a revision control system.  They are followed by:
+The items above, together, form the changelog for the patch.  Writing good
+changelogs is a crucial but often-neglected art; it's worth spending
+another moment discussing this issue.  When writing a changelog, you should
+bear in mind that a number of different people will be reading your words.
+These include subsystem maintainers and reviewers who need to decide
+whether the patch should be included, distributors and other maintainers
+trying to decide whether a patch should be backported to other kernels, bug
+hunters wondering whether the patch is responsible for a problem they are
+chasing, users who want to know how the kernel has changed, and more.  A
+good changelog conveys the needed information to all of these people in the
+most direct and concise way possible.
+
+To that end, the summary line should describe the effects of and motivation
+for the change as well as possible given the one-line constraint.  The
+detailed description can then amplify on those topics and provide any
+needed additional information.  If the patch fixes a bug, cite the commit
+which introduced the bug if possible.  If a problem is associated with
+specific log or compiler output, include that output to help others
+searching for a solution to the same problem.  If the change is meant to
+support other changes coming in later patch, say so.  If internal APIs are
+changed, detail those changes and how other developers should respond.  In
+general, the more you can put yourself into the shoes of everybody who will
+be reading your changelog, the better that changelog (and the kernel as a
+whole) will be.
+
+Needless to say, the changelog should be the text used when committing the
+change to a revision control system.  It will be followed by:
 
  - The patch itself, in the unified ("-u") patch format.  Using the "-p"
    option to diff will associate function names with changes, making the
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/debugfs.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/debugfs.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ed52af60c2d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/debugfs.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+Copyright 2009 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
+
+Debugfs exists as a simple way for kernel developers to make information
+available to user space.  Unlike /proc, which is only meant for information
+about a process, or sysfs, which has strict one-value-per-file rules,
+debugfs has no rules at all.  Developers can put any information they want
+there.  The debugfs filesystem is also intended to not serve as a stable
+ABI to user space; in theory, there are no stability constraints placed on
+files exported there.  The real world is not always so simple, though [1];
+even debugfs interfaces are best designed with the idea that they will need
+to be maintained forever.
+
+Debugfs is typically mounted with a command like:
+
+    mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug
+
+(Or an equivalent /etc/fstab line). 
+
+Note that the debugfs API is exported GPL-only to modules.
+
+Code using debugfs should include <linux/debugfs.h>.  Then, the first order
+of business will be to create at least one directory to hold a set of
+debugfs files:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_dir(const char *name, struct dentry *parent);
+
+This call, if successful, will make a directory called name underneath the
+indicated parent directory.  If parent is NULL, the directory will be
+created in the debugfs root.  On success, the return value is a struct
+dentry pointer which can be used to create files in the directory (and to
+clean it up at the end).  A NULL return value indicates that something went
+wrong.  If ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) is returned, that is an indication that the
+kernel has been built without debugfs support and none of the functions
+described below will work.
+
+The most general way to create a file within a debugfs directory is with:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_file(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				       struct dentry *parent, void *data,
+				       const struct file_operations *fops);
+
+Here, name is the name of the file to create, mode describes the access
+permissions the file should have, parent indicates the directory which
+should hold the file, data will be stored in the i_private field of the
+resulting inode structure, and fops is a set of file operations which
+implement the file's behavior.  At a minimum, the read() and/or write()
+operations should be provided; others can be included as needed.  Again,
+the return value will be a dentry pointer to the created file, NULL for
+error, or ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) if debugfs support is missing.
+
+In a number of cases, the creation of a set of file operations is not
+actually necessary; the debugfs code provides a number of helper functions
+for simple situations.  Files containing a single integer value can be
+created with any of:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_u8(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				     struct dentry *parent, u8 *value);
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_u16(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				      struct dentry *parent, u16 *value);
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_u32(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				      struct dentry *parent, u32 *value);
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_u64(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				      struct dentry *parent, u64 *value);
+
+These files support both reading and writing the given value; if a specific
+file should not be written to, simply set the mode bits accordingly.  The
+values in these files are in decimal; if hexadecimal is more appropriate,
+the following functions can be used instead:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_x8(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				     struct dentry *parent, u8 *value);
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_x16(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				      struct dentry *parent, u16 *value);
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_x32(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				      struct dentry *parent, u32 *value);
+
+Note that there is no debugfs_create_x64().
+
+These functions are useful as long as the developer knows the size of the
+value to be exported.  Some types can have different widths on different
+architectures, though, complicating the situation somewhat.  There is a
+function meant to help out in one special case:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_size_t(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				         struct dentry *parent, 
+					 size_t *value);
+
+As might be expected, this function will create a debugfs file to represent
+a variable of type size_t.
+
+Boolean values can be placed in debugfs with:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_bool(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				       struct dentry *parent, u32 *value);
+
+A read on the resulting file will yield either Y (for non-zero values) or
+N, followed by a newline.  If written to, it will accept either upper- or
+lower-case values, or 1 or 0.  Any other input will be silently ignored.
+
+Finally, a block of arbitrary binary data can be exported with:
+
+    struct debugfs_blob_wrapper {
+	void *data;
+	unsigned long size;
+    };
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_blob(const char *name, mode_t mode,
+				       struct dentry *parent,
+				       struct debugfs_blob_wrapper *blob);
+
+A read of this file will return the data pointed to by the
+debugfs_blob_wrapper structure.  Some drivers use "blobs" as a simple way
+to return several lines of (static) formatted text output.  This function
+can be used to export binary information, but there does not appear to be
+any code which does so in the mainline.  Note that all files created with
+debugfs_create_blob() are read-only.
+
+There are a couple of other directory-oriented helper functions:
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_rename(struct dentry *old_dir, 
+    				  struct dentry *old_dentry,
+		                  struct dentry *new_dir, 
+				  const char *new_name);
+
+    struct dentry *debugfs_create_symlink(const char *name, 
+                                          struct dentry *parent,
+				      	  const char *target);
+
+A call to debugfs_rename() will give a new name to an existing debugfs
+file, possibly in a different directory.  The new_name must not exist prior
+to the call; the return value is old_dentry with updated information.
+Symbolic links can be created with debugfs_create_symlink().
+
+There is one important thing that all debugfs users must take into account:
+there is no automatic cleanup of any directories created in debugfs.  If a
+module is unloaded without explicitly removing debugfs entries, the result
+will be a lot of stale pointers and no end of highly antisocial behavior.
+So all debugfs users - at least those which can be built as modules - must
+be prepared to remove all files and directories they create there.  A file
+can be removed with:
+
+    void debugfs_remove(struct dentry *dentry);
+
+The dentry value can be NULL, in which case nothing will be removed.
+
+Once upon a time, debugfs users were required to remember the dentry
+pointer for every debugfs file they created so that all files could be
+cleaned up.  We live in more civilized times now, though, and debugfs users
+can call:
+
+    void debugfs_remove_recursive(struct dentry *dentry);
+
+If this function is passed a pointer for the dentry corresponding to the
+top-level directory, the entire hierarchy below that directory will be
+removed.
+
+Notes:
+	[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/309298/