linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120326160540.ca746457.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:05:40 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.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 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:47:08 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> 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:

I'd be OK with that, but first we should define what "Originally-by:"
means!  I'd want it to mean that a) Paul was the original author and b)
Paul approves the recording of Daniel as the primary author.
--
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/