Hi, Thank you for clarifying my mistakes, and I apologize for them. I mistakenly generated this patch against linux-mainline, which is why it doesn’t apply to docs-next. I will switch to the correct docs-next repository (git://git.lwn.net/linux.git docs-next), recreate the patch from a clean checkout, and include a full changelog section as you mentioned to me. On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 17:59, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Bartlomiej Kubik <kubik.bartlomiej@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Fixed missing definite article "states that the parameter" as suggested. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Kubik <kubik.bartlomiej@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst > > index 445248787e77..7bf8cc7df6b5 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst > > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ need or coordination with <Documentation/arch/x86/boot.rst>. > > There are also arch-specific kernel-parameters not documented here. > > > > Note that ALL kernel parameters listed below are CASE SENSITIVE, and that > > -a trailing = on the name of any parameter states that parameter will > > +a trailing = on the name of any parameter states that the parameter will > > be entered as an environment variable, whereas its absence indicates that > > Thank you for working to improve our documentation. That said, there > are a number of problems to address here. > > - The patch does not apply to docs-next, or to any recent kernel > release. Which version did you generate the patch against? > > - When you do a "v2" patch, you should include, after the "---" line, a > summary of what changed since the previous version. That is > especially true when you have seemingly just dropped one of the > changes you made the first time around? > > Ah, I think I see...you generated this on top of your previous > version? That explains why it didn't apply. Please do not do that; > when a patch needs changes due to review comments, recreate the patch. > > - "Fix a warning" is rarely a good subject line for a patch; you should > say what you actually did. In this case, "replace a duplicated word" > or some such would be better. > > - Finally, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst asks that > changelogs be written in the imperative form. I am not a stickler for > that, but some other maintainers definitely are, so it is a good habit > to adopt for all of your patches. > > Thanks, > > jon -- Best regards Bartłomiej Kubik
