From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:23:51 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: "K.Prasad" Subject: Re: [Patch 0/5] PPC64-HWBKPT: Hardware Breakpoint interfaces - ver XXII Message-ID: <20100610042351.GA17989@drongo> References: <20100528063924.GA8679@in.ibm.com> <20100602113316.GA17061@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100604065145.GA2408@in.ibm.com> <20100604090648.GC26154@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100607070351.GA3853@in.ibm.com> <20100607112559.GA2419@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100609103223.GA10656@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100609103223.GA10656@in.ibm.com> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 04:02:23PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: > (Given that it's your idea I've added your > signed-off too). Actually, you should never add someone else's signed-off-by unless they specifically ask you to. The signed-off-by lines are supposed to show the path that the patch took to get into the tree, so in general only the original author(s) and the maintainers who passed the patch along should add signed-off-by lines. It would only be a maintainer who would add someone else's signed-off-by, and then only if someone who needs to sign off on the patch had forgotten and then asked the maintainer to correct their mistake. In this case the appropriate way to give credit would be just a sentence in the patch description; no formal tag is needed. Paul.