linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/16] perf, persistent: Kernel updates for perf tool integration

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: <20130531122136.GA17843@nazgul.tnic>
Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 14:21:36 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] perf, persistent: Kernel updates for perf tool
 integration

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:32:10AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> Hmm, since the changes in the onliner patches are either hard effort
> to find in reviewing/testing or more or less related to the new
> implementation, I better prefer to keep authorship as well to document
> the code development (don't blame me about patch count ;)). We better
> should add a branch (preferable at topic branch in tip?) as soon as
> possible for this.

Yes, you should definitely keep authorship - simply state this in the
commit message, add your SOB, etc. However, I don't want to have messy
history for patches which haven't been reviewed yet. This complicates
review needlessly and makes absolutely no sense for later when you stare
at the history.

Thanks.
--
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/