linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/2] dt-bindings: display: simple: add support for InnoLux G070ACE-L01

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: <2d7d8462-4e75-bbd2-4ae5-6403eda43020@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:01:27 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     richard.leitner@...ux.dev,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 1/2] dt-bindings: display: simple: add support
 for InnoLux G070ACE-L01

On 21/04/2023 18:51, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> ...and, again, it matches the order that I thought was right. In other
>>> words, the patch file generated says:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>
>> We talk about `b4 trailers`, because the tag is applied by the
>> submitter, not by the maintainer.
>>
>>>
>>> Did I get something wrong in the above?
>>
>> Your `b4 am` will of course put the tag later, because it is you who
>> applies the tag.
> 
> Ah, got it. So I guess from the perspective of "b4" every time the
> author modifies a patch (like adding new tags to it) then it's a new
> application of Signed-off-by and thus the old Signed-off-by is removed
> from the top and a new one is added below all the tags that have been
> received. Thus if b4 grabs all the tags off the mailing list for
> applying it ends up in a different order than if it grabs all the tags
> off the mailing list for sending a new version.
> 
> OK, I can understand that perspective. I'll keep it in mind.

Yeah. I actually agree with your point that submitter's SoB should
always be the last one, but I agree more with using process via
standardized tools. IOW, since I cannot change in this matter b4, I need
to agree with it. :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof