linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: whitelist Originally-by: signature

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: <cddb7f4f3e247aacd54132d418009bba03308ed0.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:32:54 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>
Cc:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: whitelist Originally-by: signature

On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 09:29 -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:46:27 +0100
> Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 07:09:17AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 16:02 +0100, Eugeniu Rosca wrote:  
> > > > Oftentimes [1], the contributor would like to honor or give credits [2]
> > > > to somebody's original ideas in the submission/reviewing process. While
> > > > "Co-developed-by:" and "Suggested-by:" (currently whitelisted) could be
> > > > employed for this purpose, they are not ideal.  
> > > 
> > > You need to get the use of this accepted into Documentation/process
> > > before adding it to checkpatch  
> > 
> > If the change [*] makes sense to you, I can submit an update to
> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> 
> So there appear to be 89 patches with Originally-by in the entire Git
> history, which isn't a a lot; there are 3x as many Co-developed-by tags,
> which still isn't a huge number.  I do wonder if it's worth recognizing
> yet another tag with a subtly different shade of meaning here?  My own
> opinion doesn't matter a lot, but I'd like to have a sense that there is
> wider acceptance of this tag before adding it to the docs.

I am also not a proponent of adding this as a new tag/signature.