Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: notify hypervisor about guest entering s2idle state

Grzegorz Jaszczyk
2022-06-15T18:00:55Z

pon., 13 cze 2022 o 07:03 Mario Limonciello
<mario.limonciello@amd.com> napisał(a):
>
> On 6/10/22 07:49, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 6/10/22 04:36, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote:
> >> czw., 9 cze 2022 o 16:27 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> napisał(a):
> >>> On 6/9/22 04:03, Grzegorz Jaszczyk wrote:
> >>>> Co-developed-by: Peter Fang <peter.fang@intel.corp-partner.google.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Fang <peter.fang@intel.corp-partner.google.com>
> >>>> Co-developed-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.corp-partner.google.com>
> >>>> Co-developed-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@semihalf.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@semihalf.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/hypercalls.rst | 7 +++++++
> >>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
> >>>> drivers/acpi/x86/s2idle.c | 8 ++++++++
> >>>> include/linux/suspend.h | 1 +
> >>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm_para.h | 1 +
> >>>> kernel/power/suspend.c | 4 ++++
> >>>> 6 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> >>> What's the deal with these emails?
> >>>
> >>> zide.chen@intel.corp-partner.google.com
> >>>
> >>> I see a smattering of those in the git logs, but never for Intel folks.
> >> I've kept emails as they were in the original patch and I do not think
> >> I should change them. This is what Zide and Peter originally used.
> >
> > "Original patch"? Where did you get this from?
>
> Is this perhaps coming from Chromium Gerrit? If so, I think you should
> include a link to the Gerrit code review discussion.

Yes, the original patch comes from chromium gerrit:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/3482475/4
and after reworking but before sending to the mailing list, I've asked
all involved guys for ack and it was done internally on gerrit:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/3666997

>
> If it's not a public discussion/patch originally perhaps Suggested-by:
> might be a better tag to use.
>
> >
> >>> I'll also say that I'm a bit suspicious of a patch that includes 5
> >>> authors for 24 lines of code. Did it really take five of you to write
> >>> 24 lines of code?
> >> This patch was built iteratively: original patch comes from Zide and
> >> Peter, I've squashed it with Tomasz later changes and reworked by
> >> myself for upstream. I didn't want to take credentials from any of the
> >> above so ended up with Zide as an author and 3 co-developers. Please
> >> let me know if that's an issue.
> >
> > It just looks awfully fishy.
> >
> > If it were me, and I'd put enough work into it to believe I deserved
> > credit as an *author* (again, of ~13 lines of actual code), I'd probably
> > just zap all the other SoB's and mention them in the changelog. I'd
> > also explain where the code came from.
> >
> > Your text above wouldn't be horrible context to add to a cover letter.

Actually it may not be an issue for the next version since the
suggested by Sean approach is quite different so I would most likely
end up with reduced SoB/Co-dev-by in the next version.

Best regards,
Grzegorz