docs: remove the tips on how to submit patches from MAINTAINERS

   working toward the creation of the best kernel they can; they are not

   trying to create discomfort for their employers' competitors.

 - Be prepared for seemingly silly requests for coding style changes

   and requests to factor out some of your code to shared parts of

   the kernel. One job the maintainers do is to keep things looking

   the same. Sometimes this means that the clever hack in your driver

   to get around a problem actually needs to become a generalized

   kernel feature ready for next time.

What all of this comes down to is that, when reviewers send you comments,

you need to pay attention to the technical observations that they are

making.  Do not let their form of expression or your own pride keep that

List of maintainers and how to submit kernel changes

====================================================

Please try to follow the guidelines below.  This will make things

easier on the maintainers.  Not all of these guidelines matter for every

trivial patch so apply some common sense.

Tips for patch submitters

-------------------------

1.	Always *test* your changes, however small, on at least 4 or

	5 people, preferably many more.

2.	Try to release a few ALPHA test versions to the net. Announce

	them onto the kernel channel and await results. This is especially

	important for device drivers, because often that's the only way

	you will find things like the fact version 3 firmware needs

	a magic fix you didn't know about, or some clown changed the

	chips on a board and not its name.  (Don't laugh!  Look at the

	SMC etherpower for that.)

3.	Make sure your changes compile correctly in multiple

	configurations. In particular check that changes work both as a

	module and built into the kernel.

4.	When you are happy with a change make it generally available for

	testing and await feedback.

5.	Make a patch available to the relevant maintainer in the list. Use

	``diff -u`` to make the patch easy to merge. Be prepared to get your

	changes sent back with seemingly silly requests about formatting

	and variable names.  These aren't as silly as they seem. One

	job the maintainers (and especially Linus) do is to keep things

	looking the same. Sometimes this means that the clever hack in

	your driver to get around a problem actually needs to become a

	generalized kernel feature ready for next time.

	PLEASE check your patch with the automated style checker

	(scripts/checkpatch.pl) to catch trivial style violations.

	See Documentation/process/coding-style.rst for guidance here.

	PLEASE CC: the maintainers and mailing lists that are generated

	by ``scripts/get_maintainer.pl.`` The results returned by the

	script will be best if you have git installed and are making

	your changes in a branch derived from Linus' latest git tree.

	See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for details.

	PLEASE try to include any credit lines you want added with the

	patch. It avoids people being missed off by mistake and makes

	it easier to know who wants adding and who doesn't.

	PLEASE document known bugs. If it doesn't work for everything

	or does something very odd once a month document it.

	PLEASE remember that submissions must be made under the terms

	of the Linux Foundation certificate of contribution and should

	include a Signed-off-by: line.  The current version of this

	"Developer's Certificate of Origin" (DCO) is listed in the file

	Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.

6.	Make sure you have the right to send any changes you make. If you

	do changes at work you may find your employer owns the patch

	not you.

7.	When sending security related changes or reports to a maintainer

	please Cc: security@kernel.org, especially if the maintainer

	does not respond. Please keep in mind that the security team is

	a small set of people who can be efficient only when working on

	verified bugs. Please only Cc: this list when you have identified

	that the bug would present a short-term risk to other users if it

	were publicly disclosed. For example, reports of address leaks do

	not represent an immediate threat and are better handled publicly,

	and ideally, should come with a patch proposal. Please do not send

	automated reports to this list either. Such bugs will be handled

	better and faster in the usual public places. See

	Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst for details.

8.	Happy hacking.

List of maintainers

===================

Descriptions of section entries and preferred order

---------------------------------------------------