Re: [PATCH V4 1/5] arm/dt: add basic mx51 device tree support

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 aFt 11:03:55PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Jason Hui <jason.hui-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Hi, Grant,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> Minor comments below.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:59:41PM +0800, Jason Liu wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <jason.hui-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Liu <r64343-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
> >>
> >> This looks wrong.  You should only have one s-o-b line.  Use one email
> >> addr or the other.  Not both.
> >
> > I just take the same approach as this link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/17/363
> > If you think it's not applicable, I can change it.
> 
> Yeah, I don't think that's right.  A s-o-b is a personal assertion
> that the patch is to the best of your knowledge that you have the
> right to submit it for inclusion in the kernel (see section 12 of
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches).  It doesn't make any statements
> about who owns the copyright on the patch or other issues of corporate
> ownership.  Companies may have policies about which email address
> employees use when signing off, but that isn't what the s-o-b protocol
> is for.
> 
> Since there isn't more than one of you, you should only have one s-o-b
> line.  :-)
> 
> Paul, since your email was presented as evidence, would you care to
> offer a counter-argument?  :-)

How about https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/22/668?  ;-)

There is only one of me, but I am acting in two roles.

							Thanx, Paul