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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:32:15 +0000
From:   "Konstantin Ryabitsev" <konstantin.ryabitsev@...ux.dev>
To:     "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "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

April 21, 2023 1:01 PM, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>> 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. :)

FWIW, everyone disagrees on how it should be done (which is a totally normal state of things). B4 uses the "chain of custody" logic when it comes to trailers, described here:

https://lore.kernel.org/tools/20221031165842.vxr4kp6h7qnkc53l@meerkat.local/

In brief, the logic here is that the "Signed-off-by" trailer indicates where the chain of custody for all previous trailers ends. The following order:

Reviewed-by: Reviewer <>
Signed-off-by: Submitter <>
Signed-off-by: Submaintainer <>

Tells that it was the Submitter who collected and applied the Reviewed-by tag, which is why when someone runs "b4 trailers -u", their Signed-off-by is always moved to the bottom to indicate the proper chain of custody boundary.

The following order says something very different:

Signed-off-by: Submitter <>
Reviewed-by: Reviewer <>
Signed-off-by: Submaintainer <>

This indicates that the "Reviewed-by" trailer was collected by the Submaintainer, because it is below the chain-of-custody boundary of the Submitter.

The main reason is if Reviewer says "hey, I don't remember reviewing this, who put my name in there," the order will point at the person in whose custody section this tag shows up.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
-K