linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] sched: Extend scheduler's asym packing

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610262012330.5013@nanos>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:23:48 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] sched: Extend scheduler's asym packing

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 12:27 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Tim Chen wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > We generalize the scheduler's asym packing to provide an ordering
> > > of the cpu beyond just the cpu number.  This allows the use of the
> > > ASYM_PACKING scheduler machinery to move loads to preferred CPU in a
> > > sched domain. The preference is defined with the cpu priority
> > > given by arch_asym_cpu_priority(cpu).
> > > 
> > > We also record the most preferred cpu in a sched group when
> > > we build the cpu's capacity for fast lookup of preferred cpu
> > > during load balancing.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > This SOB-chain is bogus. Same for all other patches.
> > 
> 
> I am the primary author of the patch so I have my sign-off on top.  There
> were also much internal discussions/reviews between myself, Peter and Srinivas,
> before we post the first version of this patch.
> I incorporated their inputs into the patch and added their sign-offs.  
> 
> Can you be more explicit on why you think the sign-offs here are bogus?

Because SOB chains document the way a patch takes from the author to the
kernel. The above says:

You authored the patch and sent it to Peter who sent it to Srinivas. So how
does it end up sent from you in my inbox?

We have no formal tag for co developed patches, but it's common practice to
either acknowledge contributions from others in free text form or use a
non-documented tag like 'Co-developed-by:' or 'Co-authored-by:'.

Thanks,

	tglx