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  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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists