[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7994877a-0c46-07a5-eab0-0a8dd6244e9a@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:55:01 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zeng, Guang" <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
"Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
"Zhong, Yang" <yang.zhong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/21] x86/fpu: Make XFD initialization in
__fpstate_reset() a function argument
On 1/10/22 16:25, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> "Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of
> Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the chronological history of
> the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether the author
> is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:. Notably, the last
> Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the
> patch."
So this means that "the author must be the first SoB" is not an absolute
rule. In the case of this patch we had:
From: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
...
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Yang Zhong <yang.zhong@...el.com>
and the possibilities could be:
1) have two SoB lines for Jing (before and after Thomas)
2) add a Co-developed-by for Thomas as the first line
3) do exactly what the gang did ("remain practical and do only an SOB
chain")
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists