linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: misc: tmr-inject: Add device-tree binding for TMR Inject

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:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 14:09:29 +0200
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "Appana Durga Kedareswara rao" <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@....com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <michal.simek@...inx.com>, <derek.kiernan@...inx.com>,
        <dragan.cvetic@...inx.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <appanad@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <git@....com>,
        <git@...inx.com>,
        Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: misc: tmr-inject: Add device-tree
 binding for TMR Inject



On 7/20/22 11:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/07/2022 10:26, Michal Simek wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/22 08:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 20/07/2022 08:00, Appana Durga Kedareswara rao wrote:
>>>> From: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
>>>>
>>>> The Triple Modular Redundancy(TMR) Inject core provides functional fault
>>>> injection by changing selected MicroBlaze instructions, which provides the
>>>> possibility to verify that the TMR subsystem error detection and fault
>>>> recovery logic is working properly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.kedareswara.rao@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Appana Durga Kedareswara rao <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>
>>>
>>> Keep only one SoB.
>>
>> nit: First of all it is from xilinx.com that's why xilinx.com should be the first.
>>
>> Just for my understanding about guidance here.
>> Code was developed by Xilinx before acquisition with AMD. And because it was
>> picked from vendor tree origin xilinx.com was there to keep origin author there.
>> And upstreaming is done by new company. I can't see nothing wrong on keeping
>> both emails there but that's why my opinion. Definitely not a problem to remove
>> one of them but wanted to make sure that we do it properly for all our submissions.
> 
> It's the same person. No need for two SoBs from the same person. Since
> AMD acquired Xilinx, it holds all copyrights thus @amd.com person does
> not have to include previous SoB. He/She/They has the permission from
> employer to submit it. The second SoB is just redundant - brings no
> actual information. Otherwise please tell me which piece of DCO the
> additional SoB adds/solves (comparing to single SoB - @amd.com)?

ok. It means enough to choose one now. I am aware about some IT issues in 
progress that's why that patches can come from xilinx.com or amd.com for some 
time time.
Kedar: please just choose one.


> Similarly when you change jobs while resending your patch - you do not
> add new SoB but just keep SoB from @previous-company.com.

IMHO That would be more questionable when you create changes in origin series 
and new employer pays you to do the work.

If it is 3rd party company picking series where upstreaming is not finished you 
will expect that 3rd party will add their sob lines there too.

Thanks,
Michal