Submitting Patches — The Mesa 3D Graphics Library latest documentation

# Submitting Patches

## Introduction

Mesa contribution is a collaborative process that works like this: A contributor proposes a change (usually in the form of a GitLab merge request), which must undergo a review (usually in the form of comments from the maintainers on the merge request).

The maintainers either accept it as-is, reject it outright, or request changes from the contributor before a contribution can be accepted.

Mesa is a project that is made up of many different subprojects, for example drivers, API frontends, shader compiler infrastructure, etc. Each of these parts may have different maintainers and/or different rules and conventions. It is up to the maintainers of each specific part to decide what is acceptable for them and to direct the development of that part.

## Expectations on contributors

Due to the collaborative nature of development, the expectation is that the contributor engages with the maintainers and works with us to shape the changeset into a form that can be accepted in the project.

If you want to contribute code to Mesa, we highly recommend the following:

- Familiarize yourself with Git.

- Understand the code you write at least well enough to be able to explain why your changes are beneficial to the project.

- It’s up you what tools you use to write code (development environment, coding assistant, etc.), but keep in mind that no tool can substitute actual understanding.

In case you are not familiar with the code base, it’s okay to ask for help and guidance from more experienced developers.

The submitter is responsible for the code change, regardless of where that code change came from, whether they wrote it themselves, used an “AI” or other tool, or got it from someone else. That responsibility includes making sure that the code change can be submitted under the MIT license that Mesa uses.

This extends through the use of the tool you are using to submit your contributions. It is not allowed to use autonomously acting tools to submit any contributions, that is every contributions needs explicit oversight and your review. This includes interactions with GitLab issues or MRs in any autonomous way through such tools. It will be decided by the community and maintainers which and how such tooling will be used within the Mesa project and might be made available for other contributors to use through our GitLab instance. Do not under any circumstances wire up any review bot or similar tools.

The submitter needs to understand what code they are changing, what the change does, and justify that change in the commit messages. Using coding assistants or “AI” or other tools does not grant additional privileges or reduce our expectations.

Disclosure is always required when “AI” was involved in the creative process of coming up with the code, except in the following cases:

- Trivial or small changes that wouldn’t be copyrightable regardless of “AI” involvement. For example something like a “min” function fit this category.

- Mechanical changes where the expected result is obvious and not up to interpretation, ie. when it would be the same regardless of what tooling was used. For example, autocomplete, refactoring the name of a variable and similar activities fit this category. In these cases it is still recommended (but not required) to disclose the tool used, eg. “AI”, “sed”, “cocinelle”, etc. in order to ease the review process.

We suggest the following scheme to disclose the level “AI” tooling was involved:

- `Assisted-by: TOOL (OPTIONAL: MODEL)` for when “AI” was involved in making decisions or also generated parts of the code.

- `Generated-by: TOOL (OPTIONAL: MODEL)` for when almost all the code was generated through “AI”.

Do not use the `Co-authored-by` tag as this one is reserved for human co-authors.

If you don’t know programming (and don’t want to learn), but you are interested in the Mesa project, there are plenty of other ways to contribute besides writing code, for example reporting bugs, benchmarking, testing changes, etc.

## Basic guidelines

- Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes (except, perhaps, in very trivial cases.)

- Code patches should follow Mesa coding conventions.

- Whenever possible, patches should only affect individual Mesa/Gallium components.

- Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable (see `Git bisect`.)

- Patches should be properly formatted.

- Patches should be sufficiently tested before submitting.

- Patches should be submitted via a merge request for review.

## Patch formatting

- Lines should be limited to 75 characters or less so that Git logs displayed in 80-column terminals avoid line wrapping. Note that `git log` uses 4 spaces of indentation (4 + 75 < 80).

- The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change prefixed with a module name. Examples:

      mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG

      gallium: add pipe_caps.device_reset_status_query

      i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration.

- Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail, if needed. For example:

      i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code.

      This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code
      for Sandybridge (commit 077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this
      is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any
      platform.

- A “Signed-off-by:” line is not required, but not discouraged either.

- If a patch addresses an issue in GitLab, use the Closes: tag For example:

      Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/work_items/1

  Prefer the full URL to just `Closes: #1`, since the URL makes it easier to get to the bug page from `git log`

  Do not use the ``Fixes:`` tag for this! Mesa already uses `Fixes:` for something else. See below.

- If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review process, they should be noted such as in this example:

      st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4)

      if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8
      there is no requirement to support native S8 for this,
      the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine.

      v2: fold fixes from Marek in:
         a) put S8 last in the list
         b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable
           fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format
           for picking the format for the texture view.
      v3: hit fallback for getteximage
      v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia)

- If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this:

      Tested-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

- If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone, that should be documented with:

      Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
      Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

- When updating a merge request add all the tags (`Acked-by:`, `Reviewed-by:`, `Fixes:`, `Backport-to:` and/or other) to the commit messages. This provides reviewers with quick feedback if the patch has already been reviewed.

## The `Fixes:` tag

If a patch addresses a issue introduced with earlier commit, that should be noted in the commit message. For example:

    Fixes: d7b3707c612 ("util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory")

You can produce those fixes lines by running this command once:

    git config --global alias.fixes "show -s --pretty='format:Fixes: %h (\"%s\")'"

After that, using `git fixes <sha1>` will print the full line for you.

## The stable tag

If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch, you should add an appropriate note to the commit message.

Using a `Fixes:` tag as described in Patch formatting is the preferred way to nominate a commit that should be backported. There are scripts that will figure out which releases to apply the patch to automatically, so you don’t need to figure it out.

Alternatively, you may use the `Backport-to:` tag, as presented in the following example:

    Backport-to: 21.0

This will backport the commit to the 21.0 branch, as well as any more recent stable branch. Multiple `Backport-to:` lines are allowed, but only the lowest number mentioned actually matters, so for clarity, please only use one. You can also use the special `Backport-to: *` which will nominate the commit to be backported to every active stable branch, making it a synonym to the `Cc: mesa-stable` below.

The last option is deprecated and mostly here for historical reasons dating back to when patch submission was done via emails: using a `Cc:` tag. Support for this tag will be removed at some point. Here are some examples of such a note:

    Cc: mesa-stable
    Cc: 20.0 <mesa-stable>
    CC: 20.0 19.3 <mesa-stable>

Using the CC tag should include the stable branches you want to nominate the patch to. If you do not provide any version it is nominated to all active stable branches.

## Testing Patches

It should go without saying that patches must be tested. In general, do whatever testing is prudent.

You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches. The test suite can be run using the ‘meson test’ command. All tests must pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have to update the tests themselves.

Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with Piglit and/or dEQP to check for regressions.

As mentioned at the beginning, patches should be bisectable. A good way to test this is to make use of the `git rebase` command, to run your tests on each commit. Assuming your branch is based off `origin/main`, you can run:

    $ git rebase --interactive --exec "meson test -C build/" origin/main

replacing `"meson test"` with whatever other test you want to run.

## Submitting Patches

Patches are submitted to the Mesa project via a GitLab Merge Request (MR).

- Please do NOT submit your patches in email to a mailing list, we only review patches on GitLab.

- Please do NOT paste your patches as comments in a conversation, unless it is small or unless that is what the maintainers requested.

- If you are not familiar with how to use git, please learn that before making a contribution to Mesa.

When opening a merge request, we recommend the following best practices:

Add a prefix to the title of the MR to indicate which part of the codebase is affected. This is helpful to people who receive many MRs and filter them by title. All commits must also have a prefix. If you are unsure what is the correct prefix, please check the git history for the files you are changing and choose based on that.

If you are already in the ‘developer’ role, add labels to your MR to help reviewers find your MR. For example:

- Mesa changes affecting all drivers: mesa

- Hardware vendor specific code: AMD common, intel, …

- Driver specific code: ANV, freedreno, i965, iris, radeonsi, RADV, vc4, …

- Other tag examples: gallium, util

If you don’t add any labels, a bot will attempt to add the correct ones.

Tick the following when creating the MR. It allows developers to rebase your work on top of main.

    Allow commits from members who can merge to the target branch

If you revise your patches based on code review and push an update to your branch, you should maintain a clean history in your patches. There should not be “fixup” patches in the history. The series should be buildable and functional after every commit whenever you push the branch.

It is your responsibility to keep the MR alive and making progress, as there are no guarantees that a Mesa dev will independently take interest in it.

Some other notes:

- Make changes and update your branch based on feedback

- After an update, for the feedback you handled, close the feedback discussion with the “Resolve Discussion” button. This way the reviewers know which feedback got handled and which didn’t.

- Old, stale MR may be closed, but you can reopen it if you still want to pursue the changes

- You should periodically check to see if your MR needs to be rebased

- Make sure your MR is closed if your patches get pushed outside of GitLab

- Please send MRs from a personal fork rather than from the main Mesa repository, as it clutters it unnecessarily.

## Reviewing Patches

To participate in code review, you can monitor the GitLab Mesa Merge Requests page, and/or register for notifications in your GitLab settings.

When you’ve reviewed a patch, please be unambiguous about your review. That is, state either

    Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

or

    Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

Rather than saying just “LGTM” or “Seems OK”.

If small changes are suggested, it’s OK to say something like:

    With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long as the issues are resolved first.

These Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by tags should also be amended into commits in a MR before it is merged.

When providing a Reviewed-by, Acked-by, or Tested-by tag in a GitLab MR, enclose the tag in backticks:

    `Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@example.com>`

This is the markdown format for literal, and will prevent GitLab from hiding the < and > symbols.

Review by non-experts is encouraged. Understanding how someone else goes about solving a problem is a great way to learn your way around the project. The submitter is expected to evaluate whether they have an appropriate amount of review feedback from people who also understand the code before merging their patches.

## Merging merge requests

Once a merge request has been appropriately reviewed, its author can decide to merge it.

Warning

Pushing (`git push`) directly to `main` is forbidden. This bypasses all the CI checks and is likely to cause issues for everyone else.

Warning

Do not use the “Merge”/”Merge when pipeline succeeds”/”Set to auto-merge” buttons.

We use a custom script to manage this, triggered by assigning the MR to the pseudo-user @marge-bot.

Authors who do not have `Developer` access (or above) should ask on the merge request for someone else to do it for them, or reach on other channels if the MR reviewers don’t have access themselves.

Do not merge someone else’s MR unless you are sure they don’t have a new version that they are testing locally for instance. When in doubt, ask, for instance by leaving a comment on that MR.

### Common issues when merging

`This branch couldn't be merged: Manual Step encountered with run-manual-jobs set to False`

  The Marge script rebases the MR’s branch onto the MR’s target branch (usually `main`) and adds some extra info to the commit messages (e.g. `Part-of:` which contains the URL back to the MR that merged the commit). If there is nothing to rebase and nothing to add to the commit messages (e.g. if the user took the commits from Marge, modified them and pushed that), then Marge will have nothing to push, skipping the creation of the merge pipeline.

  The solution is to either wait until something else is merged, causing Marge to rebase, or remove the `Part-of:` trailer from at least one commit message (the top commit is enough, not need to edit all of them), causing Marge to add it back. Either of these causes Marge to push new commits, falling back into the normal case.

## Nominating a commit for a stable branch

There are several ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable branch and release. In order or preference:

- By adding the `Fixes:` tag in the commit message as described above, if you are fixing a specific commit.

- By adding the `Cc: mesa-stable` tag in the commit message as described above.

- By submitting a merge request against the `staging/year.quarter` branch on GitLab. Refer to the instructions below.

Please DO NOT send patches to mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org, it is not monitored actively and is a historical artifact.

If you are not the author of the original patch, please Cc: them in your nomination request.

The current patch status can be observed in the staging branch.

## Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch

Mesa has a designated release manager for each stable branch, and the release manager is the only developer that should be pushing changes to these branches. Everyone else should nominate patches using the mechanism described above. The following rules define which patches are accepted and which are not. The stable-release manager is also given broad discretion in rejecting patches that have been nominated.

- Patch must conform with the Basic guidelines

- Patch must have landed in main first. In case where the original patch is too large and/or otherwise contradicts with the rules set within, a backport is appropriate.

- It must not introduce a regression - be that build or runtime wise.

  Note

  If the regression is due to faulty Piglit/dEQP/CTS/other test the latter must be fixed first. A reference to the offending test(s) and respective fix(es) should be provided in the nominated patch.

- Patch cannot be larger than 100 lines.

- Patches that move code around with no functional change should be rejected.

- Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.

  Note

  An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling “features”. For example, backports of new code to support a newly-developed hardware product can be accepted if they can be reasonably determined not to have effects on other hardware.

- Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the author.

- Performance patches are considered only if they provide information about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use numbers to represent your measurements.

If the patch complies with the rules it will be cherry-picked. Alternatively the release manager will reply to the patch in question stating why the patch has been rejected or would request a backport. The stable-release manager may at times need to force-push changes to the stable branches, for example, to drop a previously-picked patch that was later identified as causing a regression). These force-pushes may cause changes to be lost from the stable branch if developers push things directly. Consider yourself warned.

## Sending backports for the stable branch

By default merge conflicts are resolved by the stable-release manager. The release maintainer should resolve trivial conflicts, but for complex conflicts they should ask the original author to provide a backport or denominate the patch.

For patches that either need to be nominated after they’ve landed in main, or that are known ahead of time to not not apply cleanly to a stable branch (such as due to a rename), using a GitLab MR is most appropriate. The MR must be based on and target the `YY.N` branch, and the release manager will change the target to the `staging/YY.N` branch when merging it; this avoid issues with the rebasing nature of the `staging` branches. Assigning the MR to release maintainer for said branch or mentioning them is not required but helpful, to allow them to see the MR as soon as possible.

Warning

Do not merge your backport MR yourself, even if you think it’s ready. The release manager will do it once everything is ok.

Make sure to use `git cherry-pick -x` when cherry-picking the commits from the main branch. This adds the “cherry picked from commit …” line to the commit message, to allow the release maintainters to mark those as backported, which in turn allows the tools to correctly report any future `Fixes:` affecting the commits you backported.

## Documentation patches

Our documentation is written as reStructuredText files in the `docs` folder, and built using Sphinx.

    # Install dependencies (adapt for your distribution)
    apk add coreutils graphviz clang-dev musl-dev linux-headers
    python3 -m venv docs-build
    ./docs-build/bin/pip3 install sphinx===8.2.3 mako===1.2.3 hawkmoth===0.19.0 clang===$(llvm-config --version)

    # Build docs (on Debian, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to /usr/lib/llvm-VERSION/lib so it can find libclang.so)
    ./docs-build/bin/sphinx-build -W -b html docs docs-html/

The preferred language of the documentation is US English. This doesn’t mean that everyone is expected to pay close attention to the different English variants, but it does mean someone might suggest a spelling-change, either during review or as a follow-up merge-request.

## Git tips

- `git rebase -i ...` is your friend. Don’t be afraid to use it.

- Apply a fixup to commit FOO.

      git add ...
      git commit --fixup=FOO
      git rebase -i --autosquash ...

- Test for build breakage between patches e.g last 8 commits.

      git rebase -i --exec="ninja -C build/" HEAD~8