linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: palmas: Add power off control

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: <20130801084702.GM13298@lee--X1>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:47:02 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Bill Huang <bilhuang@...dia.com>, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
	rob.herring@...xeda.com, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ian.campbell@...rix.com, rob@...dley.net, broonie@...aro.org,
	nm@...com, j-keerthy@...com, grant.likely@...aro.org,
	ian@...mlogic.co.uk, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: palmas: Add power off control

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:

> On 07/31/2013 03:56 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Bill Huang wrote:
> > 
> >> Hook up "pm_power_off" to palmas power off routine if there is DT
> >> property "ti,system-power-controller" defined, so platform which is
> >> powered by this regulator can be powered off properly.
> >>
> >> Based on work by:
> >> Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bill Huang <bilhuang@...dia.com>
> >> cc: Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
> > 
> > Please put the 'Cc:' (not 'cc:') above the SoBs, then drop the "Based
> > on work by:" and replace with:
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Bill Huang <bilhuang@...dia.com>
> > 
> > This insinuates that the original patch was crated by Mallikarjun.
> 
> That advice may not be correct. Did Mallikarjun actually create *this*
> patch? More likely, this patch was based on an equivalent change to some
> other PMIC, and Bill just applied the same technique to this other
> driver.

Yes, I agree with this, and I'm sure there is a place for "Based on
work by:" or "Originally authored by:" tags, but in general, I think
the SoBs can paint a pretty good picture.

For example, if this patch is simply using techniques which already
exist in other drivers, I would personally not mention it in the
commit message. A massive percentage of kernel code has been
influenced by already existing implementations. Not much truly new and
unique kernel code enters the kernel these days.

> If Mallikarjun really did write this patch, then the git author
> field should also be set to Mallikarjun not Bill.

That's not how I'm lead to believe it works. I am under the impression
that if you take an already existing patch and upstream it with little
changes, then you keep the original creator's authorship and apply
your SoB before sending. Whereas if you have make considerable (down
to perception) changes to the patch, then you may adopt authorship. To
credit the efforts of the original author in this case I would advise
to keep the first SoB. Providing they agree with the changes of course.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/