From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752775Ab2CZXFn (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:05:43 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36168 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750934Ab2CZXFm (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:05:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:05:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Daniel Drake , mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dilinger@queued.net, pgf@laptop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands Message-Id: <20120326160540.ca746457.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4F70F1EC.3070004@zytor.com> References: <20120326180710.8DF9C9D401E@zog.reactivated.net> <20120326142908.c5248aec.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4F70F1EC.3070004@zytor.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:47:08 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > On 03/26/2012 03:45 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Morton > > wrote: > >> s/fix/break/? "Originally-from" is not a recognised tag. If this code > >> is based upon an earlier version from Paul then Signed-off-by: is > >> correct. > >> > >> What's going on here? What are you trying to communicate? > > > > I'm trying to take Ingo's suggestion, in the thread "[patch 1/8] x86, > > olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands" he wrote: > > > > ==== > > This is not a valid signoff sequence - the 'From: ' author of > > the patch must be the first SOB line. > > > > The way to do this is either to have a: > > > > From: Paul Fox > > > > or to covert Paul Fox's SOB to a credit line, such as: > > > > Originally-from: Paul Fox > > ==== > > > > The original code was from Paul Fox. I changed it somewhat > > significantly, and Paul approves of the end result. > > Can someone suggest a way of expressing this, including tag ordering, > > that will be accepted by all parties? :) > > > > My recommendation is: > > Originally-by: Paul Fox > > ... followed by Signed-off-by: in the order of patch flow. Approving a > patch, when not passing through, is indicated by Acked-by: or Reviewed-by: I'd be OK with that, but first we should define what "Originally-by:" means! I'd want it to mean that a) Paul was the original author and b) Paul approves the recording of Daniel as the primary author.