From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3JIEGbY002550 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:14:16 -0500 Received: from josefsipek.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 886DD2253BD for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from josefsipek.net (josefsipek.net [141.211.133.196]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id rEvFVXNamoyyf1xv for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:14:10 -0400 From: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: add more checks to superblock validation Message-ID: <20090419181410.GS3709@josefsipek.net> References: <1240002765-20279-1-git-send-email-felixb@sgi.com> <20090418050544.GQ3709@josefsipek.net> <81FBAD0F-AE2A-4780-BC8B-135C4CCE8D3A@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <81FBAD0F-AE2A-4780-BC8B-135C4CCE8D3A@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Felix Blyakher Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote: >>> From: Olaf Weber >>> >>> There had been reports where xfs filesystem was randomly >>> corrupted with fsfuzzer, and xfs failed to handle it >>> gracefully. This patch fixes couple of reported problem >>> by providing additional checks in the superblock >>> validation routine. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Felix Blyakher >> >> Since this patch is from Olaf, shouldn't he have a s-o-b line as well? > > I was following the guidelines from the SubmittingPatches: > > The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body, > and has the form: > > From: Original Author > > The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the > patch in the permanent changelog. If the "from" line is missing, > then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine > the patch author in the changelog. > > > So, is "From:" enough here, or "Signed-off-by" is needed as well? The From line determines author-ship. If this is Olaf's patch, then the From is right. My understanding is that s-o-b is intended as a "I didn't do anything stupid (e.g., incorporate licensed code, etc.) while working on this patch/handling this patch." This makes me believe that the author should include a s-o-b line as well. So, for example, whenever _I_ send a patch that I authored, I have both a >>From and a s-o-b. If someone picks it up (e.g., akpm), he'd add his s-o-b, so when he resends it, it'd have my from, my s-o-b, and his s-o-b. As far as I know, other kernel folks do the same. Jeff. -- My public GPG key can be found at http://www.josefsipek.net/gpg/public-0xC7958FFE.txt _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs