From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:20:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/16] KVM: PPC: e500mc support Message-Id: <4F0CB9B7.9020607@freescale.com> List-Id: References: <20111221013447.GP8378@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4F0B16D7.2000709@redhat.com> <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Avi Kivity Cc: agraf@suse.de, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Liu Yu , Varun Sethi On 01/10/2012 02:37 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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. That's its formal purpose, but some people draw other conclusions from it regardless. From Documentation/SubmittingPatches: "Rule (b) allows you to adjust the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and make him endorse your bugs." Please read the DCO at > https://lwn.net/Articles/437739/. I've read it. My signoff here qualifies based on (a) and (b). > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or Note "or in part". The contributions in this patch were all produced by Freescale employees on a work for hire basis (other than the extent to which the code is derived from code already in the Linux kernel, which is covered by (b)), and I am authorized to submit this work on Freescale's behalf for inclusion into the Linux kernel under GPLv2. I'm not trying to be difficult, just to avoid looking like it was a patch passed more-or-less as-is from person to person. When I resubmit, I can put the sign-offs in with [scottwood@freescale.com: significant rework] after them, or list them separately as part of the "based on..." paragraph. -Scott From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from TX2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.global.frontbridge.com", Issuer "Microsoft Secure Server Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD8C8B6FD9 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:20:52 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4F0CB9B7.9020607@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:20:39 -0600 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avi Kivity 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> <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.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 01/10/2012 02:37 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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. That's its formal purpose, but some people draw other conclusions from it regardless. From Documentation/SubmittingPatches: "Rule (b) allows you to adjust the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and make him endorse your bugs." Please read the DCO at > https://lwn.net/Articles/437739/. I've read it. My signoff here qualifies based on (a) and (b). > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or Note "or in part". The contributions in this patch were all produced by Freescale employees on a work for hire basis (other than the extent to which the code is derived from code already in the Linux kernel, which is covered by (b)), and I am authorized to submit this work on Freescale's behalf for inclusion into the Linux kernel under GPLv2. I'm not trying to be difficult, just to avoid looking like it was a patch passed more-or-less as-is from person to person. When I resubmit, I can put the sign-offs in with [scottwood@freescale.com: significant rework] after them, or list them separately as part of the "based on..." paragraph. -Scott From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 16/16] KVM: PPC: e500mc support Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:20:39 -0600 Message-ID: <4F0CB9B7.9020607@freescale.com> References: <20111221013447.GP8378@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4F0B16D7.2000709@redhat.com> <4F0B4002.4050407@freescale.com> <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , Liu Yu , Varun Sethi To: Avi Kivity Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F0BF8BB.4080309@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/10/2012 02:37 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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. That's its formal purpose, but some people draw other conclusions from it regardless. From Documentation/SubmittingPatches: "Rule (b) allows you to adjust the code, but then it is very impolite to change one submitter's code and make him endorse your bugs." Please read the DCO at > https://lwn.net/Articles/437739/. I've read it. My signoff here qualifies based on (a) and (b). > (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I > have the right to submit it under the open source license > indicated in the file; or Note "or in part". The contributions in this patch were all produced by Freescale employees on a work for hire basis (other than the extent to which the code is derived from code already in the Linux kernel, which is covered by (b)), and I am authorized to submit this work on Freescale's behalf for inclusion into the Linux kernel under GPLv2. I'm not trying to be difficult, just to avoid looking like it was a patch passed more-or-less as-is from person to person. When I resubmit, I can put the sign-offs in with [scottwood@freescale.com: significant rework] after them, or list them separately as part of the "based on..." paragraph. -Scott