[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F70F1EC.3070004@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:47:08 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dilinger@...ued.net, pgf@...top.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands
On 03/26/2012 03:45 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> s/fix/break/? "Originally-from" is not a recognised tag. If this code
>> is based upon an earlier version from Paul then Signed-off-by: is
>> correct.
>>
>> What's going on here? What are you trying to communicate?
>
> I'm trying to take Ingo's suggestion, in the thread "[patch 1/8] x86,
> olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands" he wrote:
>
> ====
> This is not a valid signoff sequence - the 'From: ' author of
> the patch must be the first SOB line.
>
> The way to do this is either to have a:
>
> From: Paul Fox <pgf@...top.org>
>
> or to covert Paul Fox's SOB to a credit line, such as:
>
> Originally-from: Paul Fox <pgf@...top.org>
> ====
>
> The original code was from Paul Fox. I changed it somewhat
> significantly, and Paul approves of the end result.
> Can someone suggest a way of expressing this, including tag ordering,
> that will be accepted by all parties? :)
>
My recommendation is:
Originally-by: Paul Fox <pgf@...top.org>
... followed by Signed-off-by: in the order of patch flow. Approving a
patch, when not passing through, is indicated by Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
-hpa
--
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