linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Convert to YAML bindings

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: <20211005041610.byncxlv3aeo65frw@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:46:10 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        rafael@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Convert to YAML
 bindings

On 04-10-21, 10:01, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> If you wrote the patch, then Angelo handled it, then you handled it
> again the double S-o-b captures that nicely.
> 
> Looking it from the other angle, if you remove the first S-o-b, then you
> forgot to signed it off when you authored the original patch and if you
> skip the last S-o-b then you didn't adequately sign off the final
> result.

Hmm, interesting that it can be looked this way. I am wondering if
between 10 different versions two people ping pong the ownership of
the patch, then will we need to capture 5-5 signed-off-by's from each
of them :)

>From my understanding, that I had until now, the list of tags specify
who all performed what different roles in the patch
development/submission and when did that happen (sort of timeline), so
last tag is added by the new handler of the patch. But adding two
signed-off-by's by a single guy looks fishy, though it may actually be
correct :)

-- 
viresh