Re: [PATCH 4/6] hugetlb: introduce alloc_nodemask_of_node

David Rientjes
2009-09-03T21:03:55Z

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

> > I've seen the issue about the signed-off-by/reviewed-by/acked-by order
> > come up before. I've always put my signed-off-by line last whenever
> > proposing patches because it shows a clear order in who gathered those
> > lines when submitting to -mm, for example. If I write
> >
> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> >
> > it is clear that I cc'd Mel on the initial proposal. If it is the other
> > way around, for example,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton...
> >
> > then it indicates Andrew added the cc when merging into -mm. That's more
> > relevant when such a line is acked-by or reviewed-by since it is now
> > possible to determine who received such acknowledgement from the
> > individual and is responsible for correctly relaying it in the patch
> > submission.
> >
> > If it's done this way, it indicates that whoever is signing off the patch
> > is responsible for everything above it. The type of line (signed-off-by,
> > reviewed-by, acked-by) is enough of an indication about the development
> > history of the patch, I believe, and it doesn't require specific ordering
> > to communicate (and the first line having to be a signed-off-by line isn't
> > really important, it doesn't replace the From: line).
> >
> > It also appears to be how both Linus merges his own patches with Cc's.
>
> ???
>

Not sure what's confusing about this, sorry. You order your
acked-by/reviewed-by/signed-off-by lines just like I have for years and I
don't think it needs to be changed. It shows a clear history of who did
what in the path from original developer -> maintainer -> Linus.