From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:37:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/16] KVM: PPC: e500mc support Message-Id: <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <20111221013447.GP8378@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4F0B16D7.2000709@redhat.com> <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Scott Wood Cc: agraf@suse.de, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Liu Yu , Varun Sethi On 01/09/2012 09:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > Best to include their signoffs, if possible. > > These patches are based in part on a bunch of different patches from > these people (for which I did receive signoffs). I was reluctant to put > their signoff directly on the new patches, since I didn't want to make > it look like they had submitted the patch in anything resembling its > current form. I wanted to give them credit for what they did, but not > blame for what I did with their code. > Signoffs are for assigning neither credit nor blame, but for attributing authorship and affirming that a contributor has the right to contribute code or pass it along. Please read the DCO at https://lwn.net/Articles/437739/. It's okay to miss them from time to time, especially for established contributors, but avoid it whenever possible. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D14B6FAB for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:37:22 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:37:15 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/16] KVM: PPC: e500mc support References: <20111221013447.GP8378@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4F0B16D7.2000709@redhat.com> <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Liu Yu , kvm@vger.kernel.org, agraf@suse.de, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, Varun Sethi , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/09/2012 09:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > Best to include their signoffs, if possible. > > These patches are based in part on a bunch of different patches from > these people (for which I did receive signoffs). I was reluctant to put > their signoff directly on the new patches, since I didn't want to make > it look like they had submitted the patch in anything resembling its > current form. I wanted to give them credit for what they did, but not > blame for what I did with their code. > Signoffs are for assigning neither credit nor blame, but for attributing authorship and affirming that a contributor has the right to contribute code or pass it along. Please read the DCO at https://lwn.net/Articles/437739/. It's okay to miss them from time to time, especially for established contributors, but avoid it whenever possible. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/16] KVM: PPC: e500mc support Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:37:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> References: <20111221013447.GP8378@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4F0B16D7.2000709@redhat.com> <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: agraf@suse.de, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Liu Yu , Varun Sethi To: Scott Wood Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/09/2012 09:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > Best to include their signoffs, if possible. > > These patches are based in part on a bunch of different patches from > these people (for which I did receive signoffs). I was reluctant to put > their signoff directly on the new patches, since I didn't want to make > it look like they had submitted the patch in anything resembling its > current form. I wanted to give them credit for what they did, but not > blame for what I did with their code. > Signoffs are for assigning neither credit nor blame, but for attributing authorship and affirming that a contributor has the right to contribute code or pass it along. Please read the DCO at https://lwn.net/Articles/437739/. It's okay to miss them from time to time, especially for established contributors, but avoid it whenever possible. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.