linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add Sundance DSP

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:   Sun, 1 May 2022 12:45:58 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Conor Dooley <mail@...chuod.ie>, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
        palmer@...belt.com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     conor.dooley@...rochip.com, Cyril.Jean@...rochip.com,
        daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, palmer@...osinc.com, arnd@...db.de,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add Sundance DSP

On 01/05/2022 12:39, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On 01/05/2022 09:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 30/04/2022 15:09, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>>
>>> Sundance DSP Inc. (https://www.sundancedsp.com/) is a supplier of
>>> high-performance DSP and FPGA processor boards and I/O modules.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <mail@...chuod.ie>
>>
>> If your @microchip.com email still works, then there is no need to
>> double-sign it. At the end you are still the same person... unless
>> you're not. :)
>>
>> This applies to your other patches as well.
> 
> I thought that the last SoB had to match the email it was sent from?
> If that's not the case, my bad. The @microchip email still works, but
> it would've meant waiting til Tuesday to resend.

The "From" address must match the SoB address. The person, rather than
the email, sending the patch should be the last SoB. I almost do not
recall cases where two SoBs were added in such flow like yours.

Best regards,
Krzysztof