linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add support for QCOM cpufreq HW driver

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: <20181011124333.GA10790@centauri.lan>
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:43:33 +0200
From:   Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
To:     Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
        skannan@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org, evgreen@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add support for QCOM cpufreq HW
 driver

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 04:45:25PM +0530, Taniya Das wrote:

> > WARNING: Duplicate signature
> > #370:
> > Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>
> >
> > If you are more than one author, you can use the Co-Developed-by tag.
> >
>
> Hmm, I do see multiple SOBs being used and merged.
>

>From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

"""
A Co-Developed-by: states that the patch was also created by another developer
along with the original author.  This is useful at times when multiple people
work on a single patch.  Note, this person also needs to have a Signed-off-by:
line in the patch as well.
"""

So it is not wrong to have two Signed-off-bys, just that
having the Co-Developed-by tag clearly shows that there
was more than one author.

Without the Co-Developed-by tag, the second Signed-off-by tag
is ambiguous, since the seconds Signed-off-by tag might just
have meant that that person was in the delivery chain of the
patch.

I think that the Co-Developed-by tag is optional, so if the
co-developer doesn't care about taking credit, it can probably
be skipped.

Kind regards,
Niklas