From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.240]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47484DDF46 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:49:28 +1100 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so1556513anc.78 for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:49:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3ae3aa420801071649w6a8d3939y176dc389d68f4870@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:49:27 -0600 From: "Linas Vepstas" To: "Arnd Bergmann" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] pseries: phyp dump: reserve-release proof-of-concept In-Reply-To: <200801080126.51897.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <4782C1A8.3050804@austin.ibm.com> <200801080126.51897.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: mahuja@us.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lkessler@us.ibm.com, strosake@us.ibm.com Reply-To: linasvepstas@gmail.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/01/2008, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Manish Ahuja wrote: > > > Initial patch for reserving memory in early boot, and freeing it later. > > If the previous boot had ended with a crash, the reserved memory would contain > > a copy of the crashed kernel data. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manish Ahuja > > Signed-off-by: Linas Vepstas > > I think the signed-off-by chain needs to be modified. The way it appears, > you handled the patch first, then sent it to Linas, who forwarded it > to whoever will take the patches from the list. Well, -- there was dual authorship. I remangled the patches while Manish wrote code & tested. And I'd mailed them out the first time around, so you could say I forwarded after heavy editing. > This obviously isn't true, since you are actually the one who is sending > out the patches. Moreover, I believe that the linas@austin.ibm.com > address is now dead, and shouldn't be used for this any more. Hmm. I wanted to indicate that the work was done while I was at IBM; clearly, no one is going through git and changing old, expired email addrs, and so submission based on the old addr seemed appropriate. I'm taking the Signed-off-by line as a quasi-legal thing: a fancy ID string, identifying the author(s), rather than a new way to manage email address books. > So, depending on which of you two wrote the majority of a patch, I think > it should be either I'm not sure there was a clear majority. I think Manish did more work in general, but we hacked this together side by side. I got him to create working tested code; I busted it up into individual, clean, documented, mailing-list ready chunks. --linas