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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:37:21 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>, Joachim Eastwood <manabian@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH soc] ARM: use ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M for ARMv7-M platforms On Friday 22 May 2015 09:27:38 Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-05-21 21:04, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 07:00:02PM +0200, Joachim Eastwood wrote: > >> Hi Stefan, > >> > >> On 21 May 2015 at 00:35, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> wrote: > >> > Use the new config symbol ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M which groups config > >> > symbols used by modern ARMv7-M platforms. This allows supporting > >> > multiple ARMv7-M platforms in one kernel image. However, a common > >> > kernel image requires the combined platforms to share the same > >> > main memory layout to be bootable. > >> > > >> > Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> > >> > >> You should have your sign-off on the top and not Uwe's ack. > > I don't agree. IMHO the most sensible thing is to sign off (i.e. put > > your sob line below) all the things that come from you. So it's > > > > Signed-off-by: author > > Acked-by: someone > > Signed-off-by: forwarder > > Signed-off-by: maintainer > > > > if someone already acked before forwarder sent out the mail. If the ack > > is between forwarder and maintainer it was the latter who added the Ack. > > I'm not sure it's formalized this way, but like that it makes most sense > > to me and I seem to recall having read somewhere that the footers are > > supposed to tell something about the order of people involved. > > > > So Stefan did it exactly as i would have done it. > > Hm, never give much thoughts about that order, its quite development > process driven here: I use git format-patch with --signoff. When I send > out v1, and get a Ack or Review, I add that to my commit. Hence, when I > send v2 of the patch, my sob line ends up below the Ack (that is what > happened in that case). If its the last revision, and the patch gets > picked up, the forwarder/maintainer will add the Ack and then it would > land after my sob... I think it's not very important either way. The order that Uwe suggested is what we tend to end up with when everyone just adds additional tags on the bottom, but I also see the acks added elsewhere. The order for the signed-off-by lines is more important though, as it documents the patch flow. Arnd -- 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