From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE72778661 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:34:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=134.134.136.65 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706654064; cv=none; b=FPIyy8pySWDI1VKxH7ZpoIQ6JII0NBBlJDQnGsQGNcGxh9W8NosEWjKN+9atRlTvnlBnWQIEDbzuFNRf/NXrR4sOcXQFkvt0bOc3Ip7lLV3fOfW/UfucR0PxrXnyxZD3U33q0mh8YLIaCj0VeSwoWuwSTE63fFKiTshUtD7z+sQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706654064; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YJMQN1wSu3kzU1AM+Nw8MKpj81qbFQg+xPDsjKDzeTc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition; b=DGVdEcZGGUuzn1ucUopqfnw45AKMgcYNps8BpPgHSN2+itNXYZHtODVuuynAofb4C8gJqaFd6sqP2bbn+sV6mf+pY7cGqPzXfHIagJNAUusplj/y1aqESCEpS8xkOtPa0Wpx50KmNxT6F+ke7d5J4y91bFDLM+BF6uYeO58TTxY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=AdCDW7bo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=134.134.136.65 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="AdCDW7bo" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1706654062; x=1738190062; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version; bh=YJMQN1wSu3kzU1AM+Nw8MKpj81qbFQg+xPDsjKDzeTc=; b=AdCDW7bonNwD9+53HIUrZ5b1XupIwPTW0qIiRm+Z3di4f1nHfmDW5B43 0PNItsLqu+Q07zUPuXFwNOlQTyOcZZegkNPAW+nmPDcnFKK3Nkp6St09w mOD1LcVrHT0LcZB+PSFIiA71qfq5QmaSjgnj8rQt7lLLNn/jpIGkCyNp5 /khYQXyVx29G4j1IuQMpeqbwIceAJGgeBsBL3zuM/a6UiUxngbwdFnV/Y vCHpikFGbWm5pkA+Ysg8EK11wP7kuZ7Chh+hhkleGqPXlhwbeW53Aip1j TZIZq1CxYh0UACEICzsVoxmVcImzzES5cmBy/aA1aIlv5Y/gIeSlSirS5 w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10969"; a="407136144" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,230,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="407136144" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jan 2024 14:34:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,230,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="3900840" Received: from agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com (HELO agluck-desk3) ([172.25.222.74]) by fmviesa004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jan 2024 14:34:08 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:34:06 -0800 From: Tony Luck To: x86@kernel.org Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Reinette Chatre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: commit tag order vs. "b4 am" Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Reinette noticed that v14 of my resctrl/SNC patch series[1] did not adhere to the tag order proscribed in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst Specifically my "Signed-off-by:" was now the last tag, instead of appearing before the "Reviewed-by:" and "Tested-by" tags as it had in v13. A little digging showed that my tag had been moved to the end by "b4 am" when I used it to pick up some additonal tags. An e-mail discussion with Konstantin ensued to determine if this was a bug. Konstantin said: This is the intended behaviour, because b4 follows the chain-of-custody procedure. If we encounter a Signed-off-by trailer matching the identity of the user preparing the series, we move it to the bottom to indicate that the chain-of-custody boundary has moved to include the code review trailers received after the initial submission. https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/ Basically, the "Signed-off-by" trailer is special because it indicates that everything above it is the responsibility of the person doing the sign-off. If we kept your Signed-off-by in the original spot, then it wouldn't be clear who collected and applied the trailers. Question: Do the TIP maintainers agree with Konstantin's opinion that the Signed-off-by: includes all the tags applied prior? If so, this should be called out in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240126223837.21835-1-tony.luck@intel.com/