SubmittingPatches: Clarify requirements for patches directed toward stable

I misunderstood this section as simply asking me to add an email Cc, and was unaware of the existence of Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. Hopefully this clarification will help save maintainers and new/rare submitters time in the future.

---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

index b03a832..86ae82e 100644
@@ -299,7 +299,9 @@ toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:
 
   Cc: [email protected]
 
-into your patch.
+into the sign-off area of your patch (note, not only as an email recipient).
+You should also read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt in addition to
+this file.
 
 Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own
 conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees.  The networking

2.0.5

It's a good change, but I think it's worth going a bit further: you really don't need to email the patch to stable@ at all if the CC line appears in the patch itself. The patch will automatically come to the attention of the right folks once the patch hits the mainline.

jon

I misunderstood this section as simply asking me to add an email Cc, and was unaware of the existence of Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. Hopefully this clarification will help save maintainers and new/rare submitters time in the future.

---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

index b03a832..27e7e5e 100644
@@ -299,7 +299,9 @@ toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:
 
   Cc: [email protected]
 
-into your patch.
+into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient).  You
+should also read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt in addition to this
+file.
 
 Note, however, that some subsystem maintainers want to come to their own
 conclusions on which patches should go to the stable trees.  The networking

2.0.5

Applied to the docs tree.

Thanks,

jon