docs: netdev: add note about Changes Requested and revising commit messages

One of the most commonly asked questions is "I answered all questions
and don't need to make any code changes, why was the patch not applied".
Document our time honored tradition of asking people to repost with
improved commit messages, to record the answers to reviewer questions.

Take this opportunity to also recommend a change log format.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230322231202.265835-1-kuba@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

Author: kuba-moo

Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst

@@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ Finally, the vX.Y gets released, and the whole cycle starts over.
 netdev patch review
 -------------------
 
+.. _patch_status:
+
 Patch status
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
@@ -143,6 +145,33 @@ Asking the maintainer for status updates on your
 patch is a good way to ensure your patch is ignored or pushed to the
 bottom of the priority list.
 
+Changes requested
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Patches :ref:`marked<patch_status>` as ``Changes Requested`` need
+to be revised. The new version should come with a change log,
+preferably including links to previous postings, for example::
+
+  [PATCH net-next v3] net: make cows go moo
+
+  Even users who don't drink milk appreciate hearing the cows go "moo".
+
+  The amount of mooing will depend on packet rate so should match
+  the diurnal cycle quite well.
+
+  Signed-of-by: Joe Defarmer <joe@barn.org>
+  ---
+  v3:
+    - add a note about time-of-day mooing fluctuation to the commit message
+  v2: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/123themessageid@barn.org/
+    - fix missing argument in kernel doc for netif_is_bovine()
+    - fix memory leak in netdev_register_cow()
+  v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/456getstheclicks@barn.org/
+
+The commit message should be revised to answer any questions reviewers
+had to ask in previous discussions. Occasionally the update of
+the commit message will be the only change in the new version.
+
 Partial resends
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~