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  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, 5 Oct 2021 09:46:10 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <>,,,,,,,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        Rob Herring <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Convert to YAML

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 :)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists