Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: Require base tree information

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 21/10/2026 18:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 01:55:37PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>>> there's no base-commit?  Including any historical patch (from
>>> months/years ago), patches with dependencies, etc.
>>
>> Dependency is something else, but for every other patch:
>> 1. For testing/CI: you apply on top of next
>> 2. Every other case the maintainer knows where to apply it, because it
>> is his HEAD of next-branch.
>>
>> I am repeating myself, but I really had no single problem of lack of
>> knowledge where to apply a patch as a maintainer or reviewer of some
>> subsystem, thus maybe I do not understand the actual problem you are
>> experiencing.
> 
> When I review patches, I often need to apply them to a tree, mainly to
> see the context, but sometimes also to test them. I have encountered
> many cases where the patch wouldn't apply on the current for-next branch
> of the relevant subsystem. That's often because the patch had
> dependencies. When I'm lucky they are listed manually in the cover
> letter with a link to a branch, but that's far from being the common
> case. I then have to ask the submitter to provide a branch, or enough
> information to recreate a branch. Having base information (base-commit,
> prerequisite-patch-id, and possibly base-tree) would save me quite some
> time.
> 
> I understand your concern about maintainers cherry-picking and sometimes
> introducing issues as a result. In that case I also prefer asking the
> submitter to rebase, retest, and resubmit. That's not what I want to use
> base information for, in my case it helps with the review process.

That's valid and for 95% (guessing the number...) of cases will be
solved by having linux-next as a base, thus requiring the base
information is redundant. It's just linux-next.

When patchset does NOT apply on linux-next or maintainer tree is
non-obvious, the base should be provided, but that is only "if ->
should". I think the proposal here is a bit different.

Best regards,
Krzysztof