Edit README and Code of Conduct

[Orange-Black]

I've edited README and Code of Conduct to resolve certain conflicts and comply with relevant laws and regulations, and this change makes it easier for Linux to continue to comply with Code of Conduct

[KernelPRBot]

Hi @Orange-Black!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

• Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
• Decide who to send your contribution to
• Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
• Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Where do I send my contribution?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

• Kernel Newbies - this website contains a lot of useful resources for new kernel developers.
• The kernel documentation - see also the Documentation directory in the kernel tree.

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

• You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
• Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
• Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
  • Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
  • Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
  • Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

• Working with the kernel development community - the official documentation for new kernel contributors

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

[Estrella-Explore]

I can not create a pull request in this repo, so i will paste my protest here(authorized with CC-BY-SA 4.0):

---

TITLE: We Will Still Believe in Open Source, Just Not Linus Torvalds

Yes, Linus personally ended an era that belonged to open source, which WAS an era of freedom that belonged to idealists among programmers.

We always thought that open source and GNU were an idealistic land, where some of the world's smartest and most free-spirited humans came together to build a new Tower of Babel, but we were wrong.

Did Russia violate Ukraine's national sovereignty?
This is a political question, but from most points of view, I think so.
One might say, “Hey @Estrella-Explore, aren't you Chinese? If Russia loses this war, China's international situation will only get more tense.”
If I'm looking at it from the standpoint of maximizing my own political interests, perhaps I should at least remain silent during most moments when others are boycotting Russia.
Indeed. Personally, I didn't and wouldn't make any statements in favor of either side in a Russian-Ukrainian war, and I don't want to discuss politics at this moment.

But that doesn't matter, what matters is that, @torvalds , you introduced politics into the Linux kernel - the biggest Tower of Babel ever known to mankind - with your “open source is cheap, show me your NATIONALITY” attitude.

Introducing politics into open source will only erase the part of open source that belongs to freedom, and then open source will no longer be true open source.

Open source was supposed to be a group of programmers who wish to build an ideal world (or utopia) with their own hands, gathering from all over the world to build the Babel from scratch, brick by brick, commit by commit.

However, the internal structure of Babel should not be driven by politics. History has long taught us that politics is always the twin of disagreement and division.

I've already read Linus's comments on the PR requesting revert, but I'd like to remind everyone that there is no basis for supporting the removal of all Russian developers for historical reasons such as “Finland and the USSR were antagonists in WWII”, since Finland belonged to the Axis powers at that time. Using this logic as a counter argument is not justifiable. Historical grievances should not be brought up in modern times as a reason to introduce politics into the Linux kernel.
Note that I'M NOT denying the Finnish war of self-defense “Talvisota”, which was indeed a Soviet invasion of Finland, no one can deny that, I'm just refuting the reasoning process.
Maybe I'm just being a bit biased, so I can give another example as well. Should I be hostile to all Japanese and remove all Japanese contributions (if any) to an open source project I lead because China was invaded by Japan in WWII? Obviously not.
So, to summarize, the logic of “because Finland was hostile to the Soviet Union in WWII, I can't possibly merge this PR” is not self-evident.

One of the reasons why Linux still has a great advantage, given that there are already so many divisions between distributions, is that Linux at least guarantees a unified kernel for everyone (the premise of a unified kernel is to avoid ideological and political arguments as much as possible).

However, if politics were introduced into the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel would be extremely fragmented for the foreseeable future, if not now, and that would be a huge blow to the Linux ecosystem. Who would want an operating system that is extremely fragmented and constantly arguing about politics?

[Orange-Black]

I can not create a pull request in this repo, so i will paste my protest here(authorized with CC-BY-SA 4.0):

TITLE: We Will Still Believe in Open Source, Just Not Linus Torvalds

Yes, Linus personally ended an era that belonged to open source, which WAS an era of freedom that belonged to idealists among programmers.

We always thought that open source and GNU were an idealistic land, where some of the world's smartest and most free-spirited humans came together to build a new Tower of Babel, but we were wrong.

Did Russia violate Ukraine's national sovereignty?
This is a political question, but from most points of view, I think so.
One might say, “Hey @Estrella-Explore, aren't you Chinese? If Russia loses this war, China's international situation will only get more tense.”
If I'm looking at it from the standpoint of maximizing my own political interests, perhaps I should at least remain silent during most moments when others are boycotting Russia.
Indeed. Personally, I didn't and wouldn't make any statements in favor of either side in a Russian-Ukrainian war, and I don't want to discuss politics at this moment.

But that doesn't matter, what matters is that, @torvalds , you introduced politics into the Linux kernel - the biggest Tower of Babel ever known to mankind - with your “open source is cheap, show me your NATIONALITY” attitude.

Introducing politics into open source will only erase the part of open source that belongs to freedom, and then open source will no longer be true open source.

Open source was supposed to be a group of programmers who wish to build an ideal world (or utopia) with their own hands, gathering from all over the world to build the Babel from scratch, brick by brick, commit by commit.

However, the internal structure of Babel should not be driven by politics. History has long taught us that politics is always the twin of disagreement and division.

I've already read Linus's comments on the PR requesting revert, but I'd like to remind everyone that there is no basis for supporting the removal of all Russian developers for historical reasons such as “Finland and the USSR were antagonists in WWII”, since Finland belonged to the Axis powers at that time. Using this logic as a counter argument is not justifiable. Historical grievances should not be brought up in modern times as a reason to introduce politics into the Linux kernel.
Note that I'M NOT denying the Finnish war of self-defense “Talvisota”, which was indeed a Soviet invasion of Finland, no one can deny that, I'm just refuting the reasoning process.
Maybe I'm just being a bit biased, so I can give another example as well. Should I be hostile to all Japanese and remove all Japanese contributions (if any) to an open source project I lead because China was invaded by Japan in WWII? Obviously not.
So, to summarize, the logic of “because Finland was hostile to the Soviet Union in WWII, I can't possibly merge this PR” is not self-evident.

One of the reasons why Linux still has a great advantage, given that there are already so many divisions between distributions, is that Linux at least guarantees a unified kernel for everyone (the premise of a unified kernel is to avoid ideological and political arguments as much as possible).

However, if politics were introduced into the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel would be extremely fragmented for the foreseeable future, if not now, and that would be a huge blow to the Linux ecosystem. Who would want an operating system that is extremely fragmented and constantly arguing about politics?

I agree with you. By the way, I am Chinese. I'm neutral about Russia and Ukraine, I just don't want open source software to be associated with political issues.

[Estrella-Explore]

I can not create a pull request in this repo, so i will paste my protest here(authorized with CC-BY-SA 4.0):
TITLE: We Will Still Believe in Open Source, Just Not Linus Torvalds
Yes, Linus personally ended an era that belonged to open source, which WAS an era of freedom that belonged to idealists among programmers.
We always thought that open source and GNU were an idealistic land, where some of the world's smartest and most free-spirited humans came together to build a new Tower of Babel, but we were wrong.

Did Russia violate Ukraine's national sovereignty?
This is a political question, but from most points of view, I think so.
One might say, “Hey @Estrella-Explore, aren't you Chinese? If Russia loses this war, China's international situation will only get more tense.”
If I'm looking at it from the standpoint of maximizing my own political interests, perhaps I should at least remain silent during most moments when others are boycotting Russia.
Indeed. Personally, I didn't and wouldn't make any statements in favor of either side in a Russian-Ukrainian war, and I don't want to discuss politics at this moment.

But that doesn't matter, what matters is that, @torvalds , you introduced politics into the Linux kernel - the biggest Tower of Babel ever known to mankind - with your “open source is cheap, show me your NATIONALITY” attitude.
Introducing politics into open source will only erase the part of open source that belongs to freedom, and then open source will no longer be true open source.
Open source was supposed to be a group of programmers who wish to build an ideal world (or utopia) with their own hands, gathering from all over the world to build the Babel from scratch, brick by brick, commit by commit.
However, the internal structure of Babel should not be driven by politics. History has long taught us that politics is always the twin of disagreement and division.

I've already read Linus's comments on the PR requesting revert, but I'd like to remind everyone that there is no basis for supporting the removal of all Russian developers for historical reasons such as “Finland and the USSR were antagonists in WWII”, since Finland belonged to the Axis powers at that time. Using this logic as a counter argument is not justifiable. Historical grievances should not be brought up in modern times as a reason to introduce politics into the Linux kernel.
Note that I'M NOT denying the Finnish war of self-defense “Talvisota”, which was indeed a Soviet invasion of Finland, no one can deny that, I'm just refuting the reasoning process.
Maybe I'm just being a bit biased, so I can give another example as well. Should I be hostile to all Japanese and remove all Japanese contributions (if any) to an open source project I lead because China was invaded by Japan in WWII? Obviously not.
So, to summarize, the logic of “because Finland was hostile to the Soviet Union in WWII, I can't possibly merge this PR” is not self-evident.

One of the reasons why Linux still has a great advantage, given that there are already so many divisions between distributions, is that Linux at least guarantees a unified kernel for everyone (the premise of a unified kernel is to avoid ideological and political arguments as much as possible).
However, if politics were introduced into the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel would be extremely fragmented for the foreseeable future, if not now, and that would be a huge blow to the Linux ecosystem. Who would want an operating system that is extremely fragmented and constantly arguing about politics?

I agree with you. By the way, I am Chinese. I'm neutral about Russia and Ukraine, I just don't want open source software to be associated with political issues.我同意你的看法。顺便说一句，我是中国人。我对俄罗斯和乌克兰持中立态度，我只是不希望开源软件与政治问题联系在一起。

同意。

严格地从国际关系的角度来说，俄方的确是侵犯了乌方的主权，但是我对此不予置评，因为这场战争无论哪方获胜的结果，都真的与我直接相关

Linux kernel 不应该也永远不应该掺杂政治因素，这是我的看法

[Orange-Black]

I can not create a pull request in this repo, so i will paste my protest here(authorized with CC-BY-SA 4.0):
TITLE: We Will Still Believe in Open Source, Just Not Linus Torvalds
Yes, Linus personally ended an era that belonged to open source, which WAS an era of freedom that belonged to idealists among programmers.
We always thought that open source and GNU were an idealistic land, where some of the world's smartest and most free-spirited humans came together to build a new Tower of Babel, but we were wrong.

Did Russia violate Ukraine's national sovereignty?
This is a political question, but from most points of view, I think so.
One might say, “Hey @Estrella-Explore, aren't you Chinese? If Russia loses this war, China's international situation will only get more tense.”
If I'm looking at it from the standpoint of maximizing my own political interests, perhaps I should at least remain silent during most moments when others are boycotting Russia.
Indeed. Personally, I didn't and wouldn't make any statements in favor of either side in a Russian-Ukrainian war, and I don't want to discuss politics at this moment.

But that doesn't matter, what matters is that, @torvalds , you introduced politics into the Linux kernel - the biggest Tower of Babel ever known to mankind - with your “open source is cheap, show me your NATIONALITY” attitude.
Introducing politics into open source will only erase the part of open source that belongs to freedom, and then open source will no longer be true open source.
Open source was supposed to be a group of programmers who wish to build an ideal world (or utopia) with their own hands, gathering from all over the world to build the Babel from scratch, brick by brick, commit by commit.
However, the internal structure of Babel should not be driven by politics. History has long taught us that politics is always the twin of disagreement and division.

I've already read Linus's comments on the PR requesting revert, but I'd like to remind everyone that there is no basis for supporting the removal of all Russian developers for historical reasons such as “Finland and the USSR were antagonists in WWII”, since Finland belonged to the Axis powers at that time. Using this logic as a counter argument is not justifiable. Historical grievances should not be brought up in modern times as a reason to introduce politics into the Linux kernel.
Note that I'M NOT denying the Finnish war of self-defense “Talvisota”, which was indeed a Soviet invasion of Finland, no one can deny that, I'm just refuting the reasoning process.
Maybe I'm just being a bit biased, so I can give another example as well. Should I be hostile to all Japanese and remove all Japanese contributions (if any) to an open source project I lead because China was invaded by Japan in WWII? Obviously not.
So, to summarize, the logic of “because Finland was hostile to the Soviet Union in WWII, I can't possibly merge this PR” is not self-evident.

One of the reasons why Linux still has a great advantage, given that there are already so many divisions between distributions, is that Linux at least guarantees a unified kernel for everyone (the premise of a unified kernel is to avoid ideological and political arguments as much as possible).
However, if politics were introduced into the Linux kernel, the Linux kernel would be extremely fragmented for the foreseeable future, if not now, and that would be a huge blow to the Linux ecosystem. Who would want an operating system that is extremely fragmented and constantly arguing about politics?

I agree with you. By the way, I am Chinese. I'm neutral about Russia and Ukraine, I just don't want open source software to be associated with political issues.我同意你的看法。顺便说一句，我是中国人。我对俄罗斯和乌克兰持中立态度，我只是不希望开源软件与政治问题联系在一起。

同意。

严格地从国际关系的角度来说，俄方的确是侵犯了乌方的主权，但是我对此不予置评，因为这场战争无论哪方获胜的结果，都真的与我直接相关

Linux kernel 不应该也永远不应该掺杂政治因素，这是我的看法

I don't care much about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, it's just an ordinary, normal war(I mean, war itself is a very normal thing), but this war has put open source Linux and politics together, and it's not a problem of Russia or Ukraine, it's a problem of people who create and support the removal of Russia contributors.

[liangguifeng]

LGTM