linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170725084629.7a6b9837@luca>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:46:29 +0200
From:   Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active
 utilization

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:11:30 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
> > I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
> > other patches, or are you going to apply it separately?  
> 
> Posting them in a series is fine; it is customary to put independent
> things first such that they will not get stuck after the larger changes.
> 
> > In the first case, what is the correct authorship / SOB chain (I ask
> > because I keep getting this wrong every time :)  
> 
> Yes, this is a 'fun' case :-) I'd just merge the change into your patch
> introducing it and forget I 'contributed' the name change.

I think this patch is independent from the other patches I have in my
tree... So, I will go for the solution you describe below.


			Thanks,
				Luca

> 
> For larger patches you could do something like (in your email body):
> 
> 
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> 
> Changelog goes here...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Luca...
> ---
> 
> $PATCH
> 
> 
> Which says this patch is from me, carried by you, and then I'll stick
> another SoB on to indicated I took it back. Its a bit weird, but we've
> done it before.