| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <28448.1194366312@lwn.net> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:25:12 -0700 From: corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet) To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Patch tags [was writeout stalls in current -git] Andrew wrote: > > Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn> > > I would prefer Tested-by: :( This seems like as good an opportunity as any to toss my patch tags document out there one more time. I still think it's a good idea to codify some sort of consensus on what these tags mean... jon diff --git a/Documentation/00-INDEX b/Documentation/00-INDEX index 299615d..1948a93 100644 --- a/Documentation/00-INDEX +++ b/Documentation/00-INDEX @@ -286,6 +286,8 @@ parport.txt - how to use the parallel-port driver. parport-lowlevel.txt - description and usage of the low level parallel port functions. +patch-tags + - description of the tags which can be added to patches pci-error-recovery.txt - info on PCI error recovery. pci.txt diff --git a/Documentation/patch-tags b/Documentation/patch-tags new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6acde5e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/patch-tags @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +Patches headed for the mainline may contain a variety of tags documenting +who played a hand in (or was at least aware of) their progress. All of +these tags have the form: + + Something-done-by: Full name <email@...ress> [optional random stuff] + +These tags are: + +From: The original author of the patch. This tag will ensure + that credit is properly given when somebody other than the + original author submits the patch. + +Signed-off-by: A person adding a Signed-off-by tag is attesting that the + patch is, to the best of his or her knowledge, legally able + to be merged into the mainline and distributed under the + terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. See + the Developer's Certificate of Origin, found in + Documentation/SubmittingPatches, for the precise meaning of + Signed-off-by. This tag assures upstream maintainers that + the provenance of the patch is known and allows the origin + of the patch to be reviewed should copyright questions + arise. + +Acked-by: The person named (who should be an active developer in the + area addressed by the patch) is aware of the patch and has + no objection to its inclusion; it informs upstream + maintainers that a certain degree of consensus on the patch + as been achieved.. An Acked-by tag does not imply any + involvement in the development of the patch or that a + detailed review was done. + +Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according + to the Reviewer's Statement as found at the bottom of this + file. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the + patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without + any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested + reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by + tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to + reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review + which has been done on the patch. + +Cc: The person named was given the opportunity to comment on + the patch. This is the only tag which might be added + without an explicit action by the person it names. This + tag documents that potentially interested parties have been + included in the discussion. + +Tested-by: The patch has been successfully tested (in some + environment) by the person named. This tag informs + maintainers that some testing has been performed, provides + a means to locate testers for future patches, and ensures + credit for the testers. + + +---- + +Reviewer's statement of oversight, v0.02 + +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: + + (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its + appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. + + (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been + communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with the + submitter's response to my comments. + + (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission, + I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to + the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its + inclusion. + + (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not + (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees + that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any + given situation. - 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