From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752601Ab1LFSBP (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:01:15 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43925 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778Ab1LFSBO (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:01:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:59:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ben Hutchings , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, rtmutex, bug: Show taint flags on error Message-ID: <20111206175919.GA5386@elte.hu> References: <1319773015.6759.30.camel@deadeye> <1323185640.7454.269.camel@deadeye> <1323193731.32012.81.camel@twins> <20111206175558.3215907c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20111206175558.3215907c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:48:51 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 15:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > If you disagree with a patch, do not silently drop parts > > > of it. I demand that you remove my 'Signed-off-by' as > > > this is not the change I submitted. > > > > The easy solution is that I never take patches from you > > again, ever. Consider that done. I'll let Ingo see if he can > > remove your SOB. > > In which case you are presumably ceasing to be a maintainer > for that code ? Your statement above appears to be > inconsistent with the rôle of a maintainer. What Peter did was rather sensible: he split a patch that did two things into two and applied one standalone, uncontroversial half of it and kept the part of the part of the changelog that related to that change. What Peter probably could have done is to add one more line before his SOB: [ split out the patch from the original submission ] Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Otherwise Ben Hutchings's objection here makes little sense. Thanks, Ingo