[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111206175919.GA5386@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:59:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:core/locking] lockdep, rtmutex, bug: Show taint flags on
error
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:48:51 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 15:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > If you disagree with a patch, do not silently drop parts
> > > of it. I demand that you remove my 'Signed-off-by' as
> > > this is not the change I submitted.
> >
> > The easy solution is that I never take patches from you
> > again, ever. Consider that done. I'll let Ingo see if he can
> > remove your SOB.
>
> In which case you are presumably ceasing to be a maintainer
> for that code ? Your statement above appears to be
> inconsistent with the rĂ´le of a maintainer.
What Peter did was rather sensible: he split a patch that did
two things into two and applied one standalone, uncontroversial
half of it and kept the part of the part of the changelog that
related to that change.
What Peter probably could have done is to add one more line
before his SOB:
[ split out the patch from the original submission ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Otherwise Ben Hutchings's objection here makes little sense.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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