linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 14:54:20 -0600
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Austin Christ <austinwc@...eaurora.org>,
        Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path

On 5/12/2017 2:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:29:05AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 11:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:01:37AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Austin Christ <austinwc@...eaurora.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
>>>
>>> So per that Chain Austin wrote the patch, who handed it to Dietmar, who
>>> handed it to you. Except I don't see a From: Austin on.
>>>
>>> What gives?
>>>
>>
>> Austin and I did the investigations and wrote the initial version.  We
>> discussed it with Dietmar, who suggested some significant rewrites which we
>> felt added to the readability of the code.  The current version posted on
>> the list you've seen was basically written by all three of us, so I listed
>> the authors in alphabetical order to properly give credit to all involved.
>>
>> Is there a better way to handle patches which have authorship from multiple
>> people?
> 
> Well, Signed-off-by is only a chain of custody thing. It says who
> handled the patches and that they have the right to publish and that
> sorts of thing. We have a document describing this.
> 
> It does _NOT_ however imply any kind of authorship what so ever. Of
> course, the author must be the first in the custody chain, how else
> could the patch 'escape'.
> 
> Authorship comes from the Author: header, and there's only 1 of those.
> 
> Just mention the people by name in the Changelog or something.
> 

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that assessment, but I'll discuss it 
with the folks offline and see what we want to roll into the next patch 
version after seeing what the other comments are.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.