Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:18:06 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@...marit.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Wilk <jwilk@...lk.net>,
        Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 15/20] SubmittingPatches.rst: convert it to ReST markup

- Change the sections to use ReST markup;
- Add cross-references where needed;
- convert aspas to verbatim text;
- use code block tags;
- make Sphinx happy.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
---
 .../development-process/SubmittingPatches.rst      | 233 ++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 133 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/SubmittingPatches.rst b/Documentation/development-process/SubmittingPatches.rst
index 8c79f1d53731..f47cea0ff615 100644
--- a/Documentation/development-process/SubmittingPatches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/development-process/SubmittingPatches.rst
@@ -1,9 +1,6 @@
 
-	How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
-		or
-	Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds
-
-
+How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel or Care And Operation Of Your Linus Torvalds
+=========================================================================================
 
 For a person or company who wishes to submit a change to the Linux
 kernel, the process can sometimes be daunting if you're not familiar
@@ -24,46 +21,49 @@ of the mechanical work done for you, though you'll still need to prepare
 and document a sensible set of patches.  In general, use of git will make
 your life as a kernel developer easier.
 
---------------------------------------------
-SECTION 1 - CREATING AND SENDING YOUR CHANGE
---------------------------------------------
+Creating and Sending your Change
+********************************
 
 
-0) Obtain a current source tree
--------------------------------
+Obtain a current source tree
+----------------------------
 
 If you do not have a repository with the current kernel source handy, use
 git to obtain one.  You'll want to start with the mainline repository,
 which can be grabbed with:
 
-  git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git 
+::
+
+  git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
 
 Note, however, that you may not want to develop against the mainline tree
 directly.  Most subsystem maintainers run their own trees and want to see
-patches prepared against those trees.  See the "T:" entry for the subsystem
+patches prepared against those trees.  See the **T:** entry for the subsystem
 in the MAINTAINERS file to find that tree, or simply ask the maintainer if
 the tree is not listed there.
 
 It is still possible to download kernel releases via tarballs (as described
 in the next section), but that is the hard way to do kernel development.
 
-1) "diff -up"
+``diff -up``
 ------------
 
-If you must generate your patches by hand, use "diff -up" or "diff -uprN"
+If you must generate your patches by hand, use ``diff -up`` or ``diff -uprN``
 to create patches.  Git generates patches in this form by default; if
 you're using git, you can skip this section entirely.
 
 All changes to the Linux kernel occur in the form of patches, as
 generated by diff(1).  When creating your patch, make sure to create it
-in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the '-u' argument to diff(1).
-Also, please use the '-p' argument which shows which C function each
+in "unified diff" format, as supplied by the ``-u`` argument to diff(1).
+Also, please use the ``-p`` argument which shows which C function each
 change is in - that makes the resultant diff a lot easier to read.
 Patches should be based in the root kernel source directory,
 not in any lower subdirectory.
 
 To create a patch for a single file, it is often sufficient to do:
 
+::
+
 	SRCTREE= linux
 	MYFILE=  drivers/net/mydriver.c
 
@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ To create a patch for multiple files, you should unpack a "vanilla",
 or unmodified kernel source tree, and generate a diff against your
 own source tree.  For example:
 
+::
+
 	MYSRC= /devel/linux
 
 	tar xvfz linux-3.19.tar.gz
@@ -84,7 +86,7 @@ own source tree.  For example:
 	diff -uprN -X linux-3.19-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff \
 		linux-3.19-vanilla $MYSRC > /tmp/patch
 
-"dontdiff" is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
+``dontdiff`` is a list of files which are generated by the kernel during
 the build process, and should be ignored in any diff(1)-generated
 patch.
 
@@ -93,18 +95,18 @@ belong in a patch submission.  Make sure to review your patch -after-
 generating it with diff(1), to ensure accuracy.
 
 If your changes produce a lot of deltas, you need to split them into
-individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see section
-#3.  This will facilitate review by other kernel developers,
+individual patches which modify things in logical stages; see
+:ref:`split_changes`.  This will facilitate review by other kernel developers,
 very important if you want your patch accepted.
 
-If you're using git, "git rebase -i" can help you with this process.  If
+If you're using git, ``git rebase -i`` can help you with this process.  If
 you're not using git, quilt <http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt>
 is another popular alternative.
 
+.. _describe_changes:
 
-
-2) Describe your changes.
--------------------------
+Describe your changes
+---------------------
 
 Describe your problem.  Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
 5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that
@@ -137,11 +139,11 @@ as you intend it to.
 
 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.
+system, git, as a "commit log".  See :ref:`explicit_in_reply_to`.
 
 Solve only one problem per patch.  If your description starts to get
 long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
-See #3, next.
+See :ref:`split_changes`.
 
 When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
 complete patch description and justification for it.  Don't just
@@ -173,6 +175,8 @@ SHA-1 ID of the commit. Please also include the oneline summary of
 the commit, to make it easier for reviewers to know what it is about.
 Example:
 
+::
+
 	Commit e21d2170f36602ae2708 ("video: remove unnecessary
 	platform_set_drvdata()") removed the unnecessary
 	platform_set_drvdata(), but left the variable "dev" unused,
@@ -188,20 +192,26 @@ If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
 git-bisect, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of the
 SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary.  For example:
 
+::
+
 	Fixes: e21d2170f366 ("video: remove unnecessary platform_set_drvdata()")
 
 The following git-config settings can be used to add a pretty format for
 outputting the above style in the git log or git show commands
 
+::
+
 	[core]
 		abbrev = 12
 	[pretty]
 		fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
 
-3) Separate your changes.
--------------------------
+.. _split_changes:
 
-Separate each _logical change_ into a separate patch.
+Separate your changes
+---------------------
+
+Separate each **logical change** into a separate patch.
 
 For example, if your changes include both bug fixes and performance
 enhancements for a single driver, separate those changes into two
@@ -217,12 +227,12 @@ change that can be verified by reviewers.  Each patch should be justifiable
 on its own merits.
 
 If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be
-complete, that is OK.  Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
+complete, that is OK.  Simply note **"this patch depends on patch X"**
 in your patch description.
 
 When dividing your change into a series of patches, take special care to
 ensure that the kernel builds and runs properly after each patch in the
-series.  Developers using "git bisect" to track down a problem can end up
+series.  Developers using ``git bisect`` to track down a problem can end up
 splitting your patch series at any point; they will not thank you if you
 introduce bugs in the middle.
 
@@ -231,8 +241,8 @@ then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration.
 
 
 
-4) Style-check your changes.
-----------------------------
+Style-check your changes
+------------------------
 
 Check your patch for basic style violations, details of which can be
 found in Documentation/CodingStyle.  Failure to do so simply wastes
@@ -260,8 +270,8 @@ You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your
 patch.
 
 
-5) Select the recipients for your patch.
-----------------------------------------
+Select the recipients for your patch
+------------------------------------
 
 You should always copy the appropriate subsystem maintainer(s) on any patch
 to code that they maintain; look through the MAINTAINERS file and the
@@ -297,6 +307,8 @@ obviously, the patch should not be sent to any public lists.
 Patches that fix a severe bug in a released kernel should be directed
 toward the stable maintainers by putting a line like this:
 
+::
+
   Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
 
 into the sign-off area of your patch (note, NOT an email recipient).  You
@@ -312,12 +324,14 @@ If changes affect userland-kernel interfaces, please send the MAN-PAGES
 maintainer (as listed in the MAINTAINERS file) a man-pages patch, or at
 least a notification of the change, so that some information makes its way
 into the manual pages.  User-space API changes should also be copied to
-linux-api@...r.kernel.org. 
+linux-api@...r.kernel.org.
 
 For small patches you may want to CC the Trivial Patch Monkey
 trivial@...nel.org which collects "trivial" patches. Have a look
 into the MAINTAINERS file for its current manager.
+
 Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
+
  Spelling fixes in documentation
  Spelling fixes for errors which could break grep(1)
  Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)
@@ -332,8 +346,8 @@ Trivial patches must qualify for one of the following rules:
 
 
 
-6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments.  Just plain text
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment
 on the changes you are submitting.  It is important for a kernel
@@ -356,8 +370,8 @@ you to re-send them using MIME.
 See Documentation/email-clients.txt for hints about configuring
 your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
 
-7) E-mail size.
----------------
+E-mail size
+-----------
 
 Large changes are not appropriate for mailing lists, and some
 maintainers.  If your patch, uncompressed, exceeds 300 kB in size,
@@ -366,8 +380,8 @@ server, and provide instead a URL (link) pointing to your patch.  But note
 that if your patch exceeds 300 kB, it almost certainly needs to be broken up
 anyway.
 
-8) Respond to review comments.
-------------------------------
+Respond to review comments
+--------------------------
 
 Your patch will almost certainly get comments from reviewers on ways in
 which the patch can be improved.  You must respond to those comments;
@@ -382,8 +396,8 @@ reviewers sometimes get grumpy.  Even in that case, though, respond
 politely and address the problems they have pointed out.
 
 
-9) Don't get discouraged - or impatient.
-----------------------------------------
+Don't get discouraged - or impatient
+------------------------------------
 
 After you have submitted your change, be patient and wait.  Reviewers are
 busy people and may not get to your patch right away.
@@ -396,8 +410,8 @@ one week before resubmitting or pinging reviewers - possibly longer during
 busy times like merge windows.
 
 
-10) Include PATCH in the subject
---------------------------------
+Include PATCH in the subject
+----------------------------
 
 Due to high e-mail traffic to Linus, and to linux-kernel, it is common
 convention to prefix your subject line with [PATCH].  This lets Linus
@@ -406,8 +420,8 @@ e-mail discussions.
 
 
 
-11) Sign your work
-------------------
+Sign your work
+--------------
 
 To improve tracking of who did what, especially with patches that can
 percolate to their final resting place in the kernel through several
@@ -419,9 +433,10 @@ patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
 pass it on as an open-source patch.  The rules are pretty simple: if you
 can certify the below:
 
-        Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
+Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
-        By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
+By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
 
         (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
             have the right to submit it under the open source license
@@ -447,6 +462,8 @@ can certify the below:
 
 then you just add a line saying
 
+::
+
 	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@...eloper.example.org>
 
 using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
@@ -466,7 +483,9 @@ you add a line between the last Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating
 the nature of your changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it
 seems like prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all
 enclosed in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that
-you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
+you are responsible for last-minute changes. Example:
+
+::
 
 	Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@...eloper.example.org>
 	[lucky@...ntainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
@@ -483,7 +502,9 @@ to insert an indication of the origin of a patch at the top of the commit
 message (just after the subject line) to facilitate tracking. For instance,
 here's what we see in a 3.x-stable release:
 
-Date:   Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400
+::
+
+  Date:   Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400
 
     libata: Un-break ATA blacklist
 
@@ -491,6 +512,8 @@ Date:   Tue Oct 7 07:26:38 2014 -0400
 
 And here's what might appear in an older kernel once a patch is backported:
 
+::
+
     Date:   Tue May 13 22:12:27 2008 +0200
 
         wireless, airo: waitbusy() won't delay
@@ -502,8 +525,8 @@ tracking your trees, and to people trying to troubleshoot bugs in your
 tree.
 
 
-12) When to use Acked-by: and Cc:
----------------------------------
+When to use Acked-by: and Cc
+----------------------------
 
 The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
 development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
@@ -529,15 +552,15 @@ When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing
 list archives.
 
 If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
-provided such comments, you may optionally add a "Cc:" tag to the patch.
+provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch.
 This is the only tag which might be added without an explicit action by the
 person it names - but it should indicate that this person was copied on the
 patch.  This tag documents that potentially interested parties
 have been included in the discussion.
 
 
-13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
 hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future.  Please note that if
@@ -552,9 +575,10 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
 acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
 
-	Reviewer's statement of oversight
+Reviewer's statement of oversight
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
-	By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
+By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
 
  	 (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
 	     evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
@@ -594,24 +618,27 @@ A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous commit. It
 is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated, which can help
 review a bug fix. This tag also assists the stable kernel team in determining
 which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred
-method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See #2 above for more details.
+method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
+for more details.
 
 
-14) The canonical patch format
-------------------------------
+The canonical patch format
+--------------------------
 
 This section describes how the patch itself should be formatted.  Note
 that, if you have your patches stored in a git repository, proper patch
-formatting can be had with "git format-patch".  The tools cannot create
+formatting can be had with ``git format-patch``.  The tools cannot create
 the necessary text, though, so read the instructions below anyway.
 
 The canonical patch subject line is:
 
+::
+
     Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
 
 The canonical patch message body contains the following:
 
-  - A "from" line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person
+  - A ``from`` line specifying the patch author (only needed if the person
     sending the patch is not the author).
 
   - An empty line.
@@ -619,10 +646,10 @@ The canonical patch message body contains the following:
   - The body of the explanation, line wrapped at 75 columns, which will
     be copied to the permanent changelog to describe this patch.
 
-  - The "Signed-off-by:" lines, described above, which will
+  - The ``Signed-off-by:`` lines, described above, which will
     also go in the changelog.
 
-  - A marker line containing simply "---".
+  - A marker line containing simply ``---``.
 
   - Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog.
 
@@ -633,32 +660,32 @@ alphabetically by subject line - pretty much any email reader will
 support that - since because the sequence number is zero-padded,
 the numerical and alphabetic sort is the same.
 
-The "subsystem" in the email's Subject should identify which
+The ``subsystem`` in the email's Subject should identify which
 area or subsystem of the kernel is being patched.
 
-The "summary phrase" in the email's Subject should concisely
-describe the patch which that email contains.  The "summary
-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).
+The ``summary phrase`` in the email's Subject should concisely
+describe the patch which that email contains.  The ``summary
+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
+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
+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
+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
+thousands of patches using tools such as ``gitk`` or "git log
 --oneline".
 
-For these reasons, the "summary" must be no more than 70-75
+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
+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
@@ -672,17 +699,19 @@ the patch series.
 
 A couple of example Subjects:
 
+::
+
     Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
     Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking
 
-The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
+The ``from`` line must be the very first line in the message body,
 and has the form:
 
         From: Original Author <author@...mple.com>
 
-The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
-patch in the permanent changelog.  If the "from" line is missing,
-then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
+The ``from`` line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
+patch in the permanent changelog.  If the ``from`` line is missing,
+then the ``From:`` line from the email header will be used to determine
 the patch author in the changelog.
 
 The explanation body will be committed to the permanent source
@@ -694,23 +723,23 @@ 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
+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
+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
+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.  A good example of such comments might be "patch changelogs"
+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
+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).  (git
 generates appropriate diffstats by default.)
@@ -718,11 +747,13 @@ generates appropriate diffstats by default.)
 See more details on the proper patch format in the following
 references.
 
-15) Explicit In-Reply-To headers
---------------------------------
+.. _explicit_in_reply_to:
+
+Explicit In-Reply-To headers
+----------------------------
 
 It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
-(e.g., when using "git send-email") to associate the patch with
+(e.g., when using ``git send-email``) to associate the patch with
 previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with
 the bug report.  However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
 best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
@@ -732,12 +763,12 @@ helpful, you can use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in
 the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
 
 
-16) Sending "git pull" requests
--------------------------------
+Sending ``git pull`` requests
+-----------------------------
 
 If you have a series of patches, it may be most convenient to have the
 maintainer pull them directly into the subsystem repository with a
-"git pull" operation.  Note, however, that pulling patches from a developer
+``git pull`` operation.  Note, however, that pulling patches from a developer
 requires a higher degree of trust than taking patches from a mailing list.
 As a result, many subsystem maintainers are reluctant to take pull
 requests, especially from new, unknown developers.  If in doubt you can use
@@ -748,6 +779,8 @@ A pull request should have [GIT] or [PULL] in the subject line.  The
 request itself should include the repository name and the branch of
 interest on a single line; it should look something like:
 
+::
+
   Please pull from
 
       git://jdelvare.pck.nerim.net/jdelvare-2.6 i2c-for-linus
@@ -755,10 +788,10 @@ interest on a single line; it should look something like:
   to get these changes:
 
 A pull request should also include an overall message saying what will be
-included in the request, a "git shortlog" listing of the patches
+included in the request, a ``git shortlog`` listing of the patches
 themselves, and a diffstat showing the overall effect of the patch series.
 The easiest way to get all this information together is, of course, to let
-git do it for you with the "git request-pull" command.
+git do it for you with the ``git request-pull`` command.
 
 Some maintainers (including Linus) want to see pull requests from signed
 commits; that increases their confidence that the request actually came
@@ -771,7 +804,7 @@ new developers, but there is no way around it.  Attending conferences can
 be a good way to find developers who can sign your key.
 
 Once you have prepared a patch series in git that you wish to have somebody
-pull, create a signed tag with "git tag -s".  This will create a new tag
+pull, create a signed tag with ``git tag -s``.  This will create a new tag
 identifying the last commit in the series and containing a signature
 created with your private key.  You will also have the opportunity to add a
 changelog-style message to the tag; this is an ideal place to describe the
@@ -784,12 +817,13 @@ public tree.
 When generating your pull request, use the signed tag as the target.  A
 command like this will do the trick:
 
+::
+
   git request-pull master git://my.public.tree/linux.git my-signed-tag
 
 
-----------------------
-SECTION 2 - REFERENCES
-----------------------
+REFERENCES
+**********
 
 Andrew Morton, "The perfect patch" (tpp).
   <http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt>
@@ -818,4 +852,3 @@ Andi Kleen, "On submitting kernel patches"
   Some strategies to get difficult or controversial changes in.
   http://halobates.de/on-submitting-patches.pdf
 
---
-- 
2.7.4

Powered by blists - more mailing lists