Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: cpu: Add optional CMOs by VA

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 17:18:27 +0000,
Paul Liu <paul.liu@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> I think you are the author. I'm just making some minor fixes and
> then upstreaming to the mailing list.  What is the correct way to
> make the Signed-off-by list?

In general, and unless you have completely rewritten the patch (it
doesn't seem so in this particular case), you should keep the original
authorship and sign-off chain, and add your own Signed-off-by: tag
*after* the previous ones.

You should also document what changes you have made, if any, when
picking up the patch.

When posting it, it should read something like:

<quote>
From: Random Developer <rd@ilikesoup.org>

Fix foo handling in bar().

Signed-off-by: Random Developer <rd@ilikesoup.org>
Signed-off-by: Random Committer <rc@gimmecheese.net>
[Paul: picked from the FooBar tree, fixed the return
 value for bar() and rebased to upstream]
Signed-off-by: Paul Liu <paul.liu@linaro.org>
Link: https://git.foobar.com/commit/?df2d85d0b0b5b1533d6db9079f0a0a7b73ef6a34
</quote>

where "Random Developer" is the original author, and "Random
Committer" is someone who picked up the patch the first place. The
important thing here is that, just by looking at the sign-off chain,
you can tell how the patch has been handled.

The additional information (enclosed in square bracket) is optional
but much appreciated by the reviewers, and so is the link to the
original patch, which helps seeing it in context.

If the commits have lost the original authorship (which sometimes
happen as you rebase patches and resolve conflicts), you can fix it
with:

  git commit --amend --author="Random Developer <rd@ilikesoup.org>"

on each individual commit.

Tom's email also has a good pointer to what is expected from
contributors (most of which is applicable to a large number of
open-source projects).

Hope this helps,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.