| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:47:00 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] document Acked-by: On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:11:45 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:09:10PM -0700, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote: > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> > > > > Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> > > --- > > > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff -puN Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by Documentation/SubmittingPatches > > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by > > +++ a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > > @@ -328,7 +328,20 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna > > point out some special detail about the sign-off. > > > > > > -12) The canonical patch format > > +12) When to use Acked-by: > > + > > +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the development > > +of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. > > The last part should be dropped: If "he/she was in the patch's delivery > path", a Signed-off-by: tag is required. I don't get you. Isn't that already what the text says? > > +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a > > +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can > > +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. > > + > > +Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that > > +maintainer neither wrote, merged nor forwarded the patch themselves. > > "merged" seems to be superfluous if you also mention "forwarded". OK > > +13) The canonical patch format > > > > The canonical patch subject line is: > > Please mention explicitely whether Acked-by: this now considered a > formal tag like Signed-off-by: OK. > IOW, if a maintainer says "fine with me", can I translate this to an > Acked-by: line, or do I now have to ask for an explicit Acked-by: line? I do that often. It's useful information. If person X sends an fbdev patch and Tony says "whoa, neat" and I send the patch to Linus then Linus could well think "wtf, Andrew doesn't know anything about fbdev". So I do s/whoa neat/Acked-by:/ to tell the world that someone who knows something has looked at the change. > Oh, and that's not a theoretical question, this is a result of a recent > flamewar^Wdiscussion on this list... yeah, well, what isn't ;) The person whose Acked-by: I added will get a copy of the added-to-mm email so if they didn't want that acked-by added then they get a chance to remove it again. From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Explain what we use Acked-by: for, and how it differs from Signed-off-by: Acked-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -puN Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by Documentation/SubmittingPatches --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches~document-acked-by +++ a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -340,8 +340,32 @@ now, but you can do this to mark interna point out some special detail about the sign-off. +13) When to use Acked-by: -13) The canonical patch format +The Signed-off-by: tag implies that the signer was involved in the development +of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path. + +If a person was not directly involved in the preparation or handling of a +patch but wishes to signify and record their approval of it then they can +arrange to have an Acked-by: line added to the patch's changelog. + +Acked-by: is often used by the maintainer of the affected code when that +maintainer neither contributed to nor forwarded the patch themselves. + +Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:. It is a record that the acker +has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance. Hence patch +mergers will sometimes manually covert an acker's "yep, looks good to me" into +an Acked-by:. + +Acked-by: does not necessarily indicate acknowledgement of the entire patch. +For example, if a patch affects multiple subsystems and has an Acked-by: from +one subsystem maintainer then this usually indicates acknowledgement of just +the part which affects that maintainer's code. Judgement should be used here. +When in doubt people should refer to the original discussion in the mailing +list archives. + + +14) The canonical patch format The canonical patch subject line is: _ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists