linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for ops.force_speed

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]

Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:55:19 +0100
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@...switch.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        John W Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for
 ops.force_speed_duplex existence

Dear Jakub, dear Greg,


Am 05.01.21 um 18:25 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 06:16:59PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:

>> Am 03.11.20 um 19:39 schrieb Jakub Kicinski:
>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:35:09 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>> According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my
>>>> understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c)
>>>> are connected by an *or*.
>>>>
>>>>>           (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
>>>>>               of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
>>>>>               license and I have the right under that license to submit that
>>>>>               work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
>>>>>               by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
>>>>>               permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
>>>>>               in the file; or
>>>
>>> Ack, but then you need to put yourself as the author, because it's
>>> you certifying that the code falls under (b).
>>>
>>> At least that's my understanding.
>>
>> Greg, can you please clarify, if it’s fine, if I upstream a patch authored
>> by somebody else and distributed under the GPLv2? I put them as the author
>> and signed it off.
> 
> You can't add someone else's signed-off-by, but you can add your own and
> keep them as the author, has happened lots of time in the past.
> 
> Or, you can make the From: line be from you if the original author
> doesn't want their name/email in the changelog, we've done that as well,
> both are fine.

Greg, thank you for the clarification.

Jakub, with that out of the way, can you please take patch 2/2?


Kind regards,

Paul