linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Do not set skip buddy up the sched hierarchy

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: <20191217204244.GJ2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:42:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Do not set skip buddy up the sched
 hierarchy

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 11:58:28AM -0800, Josh Don wrote:
> > Ingo, Peter, what do you think ?
> 
> I could add the Co-developed-by tag if that would be sufficient here.
> As a side note, I'm also looking at upstreaming our other sched
> fixes/patches, and some of these have the same issue with respect to
> the original author.  How would you prefer I handle these in general?

These internal patches that you have, don't they have a SoB on from the
original author?

Ingo, Greg, how do we handle patches where the original Author has
vanished/left etc and no SoB is present?

Now, in this case we know Venki was with Google in the US, and the US
allows/has copyright assignment to employers and therefore any old SoB
from a Google person should probably be sufficient, but that argument
doesn't work in general (Germany for example doesn't allow copyright
assignment/transfer).