From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757848Ab2CZXXi (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:23:38 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:36266 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757675Ab2CZXXh (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:23:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:23:35 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Daniel Drake , mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dilinger@queued.net, pgf@laptop.org, Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands Message-Id: <20120326162335.f45bf001.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20120326231408.GA7495@gmail.com> References: <20120326180710.8DF9C9D401E@zog.reactivated.net> <20120326142908.c5248aec.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20120326231408.GA7495@gmail.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 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:14:08 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake > > > Originally-from: Paul Fox > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" > > > Cc: Andres Salomon > > > > > > ... > > > > > > v4: really fix sign-off tags > > > > 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. > > No, the original ordering was *not* correct: > > From: Daniel Drake > > [...] > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake > Signed-off-by: Paul Fox > > In the previous discussion we had I explained what the rules for > signoffs are. Let me quote Linus as well: > > " The sign-off chain should be very simple: the first person > to sign off should be the author, and the last person to > sign off should be the committer. " > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/489 > > This is not true for this patch, because the first signoff does > not match the 'From:' line (author). > > Nor is the last signoff the committer - i.e. the person sending > me this patch to apply. Every maintainer along the route adds a > signoff to the tail if it's propagated via email, or does a > merge commit if it's a pull. > > If Daniel sends me a patch he should be the last signoff. If he > authored the patch then he should also be the first (and, by > implication, only) signoff. Signed-off-by does not recognize > multiple authorship - that has to be written into the changelog, > added via another type of tag - either approach is fine to me. That's a bunch of stuff which you and Linus apparently cooked up and didn't tell anyone about and didn't document anywhere. I'd never heard about it before and I doubt if many other people knew about it. And if anyone should have known about it, I should have! So we have an unknown but probably large number of patches in the tree now which do not follow this rule. So nobody can depend on Signed-off-by: ordering in the tree as it stands. So if we want to implement this (new!) rule then let's write the damn thing down (in Documentation/SubmittingPatches) and tell people about it! And, if poss, add a checkpatch rule to detect possible violations.