From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753249Ab1LFSgI (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:36:08 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59472 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752632Ab1LFSgG (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:36:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:34:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Hutchings , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, rtmutex, bug: Show taint flags on error Message-ID: <20111206183425.GC12094@elte.hu> References: <1319773015.6759.30.camel@deadeye> <1323185640.7454.269.camel@deadeye> <20111206175443.GB25031@elte.hu> <20111206181422.GA11881@elliptictech.com> <20111206182155.6b4dedc3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111206182155.6b4dedc3@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=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alan Cox wrote: > > FYI, there's no "I will only sign off on a patch doing two > > things if it's applied in full" kind of condition in the SOB > > definition, allowing that would break the GPL: people have > > the right to take your modifications to the GPL-ed kernel > > and modify it further. > > That gets into moral rights, and at least in the EU > representing someone as the author of something they are not > [..] Alan, stop being silly - you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The fact is, *every single line of code* in that commit was written by Ben Hutchinson. Peter was being excessively helpful, polite and did Ben a favor by splitting out the debug-printks from the original submission and upstreaming them. What he did not do was to apply an unrelated, still under discussion change mixed into that debug-printouts patch. Look at the original submission by Ben on lkml: Subject: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep,rtmutex,bug: Show taint flags on error The hunk that Peter left out of that patch was not declared in the patch title and was unrelated to the rest of the patch: --- a/kernel/panic.c +++ b/kernel/panic.c @@ -233,16 +233,6 @@ unsigned long get_taint(void) void add_taint(unsigned flag) { - /* - * Can't trust the integrity of the kernel anymore. - * We don't call directly debug_locks_off() because the issue - * is not necessarily serious enough to set oops_in_progress to 1 - * Also we want to keep up lockdep for staging development and - * post-warning case. - */ - if (flag != TAINT_CRAP && flag != TAINT_WARN && __debug_locks_off()) - printk(KERN_WARNING "Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint\n"); - set_bit(flag, &tainted_mask); Criticising Peter for not applying that change which the patch title did not even mention and then sulkingly asking the SOB to be removed is silly and offensive square two. Thanks, Ingo