linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted interleave

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: <3270dbbb-0bd3-4217-90f5-441210fef87b@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:41:04 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: kernel_team@...ynix.com, gourry@...rry.net, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 joshua.hahnjy@...il.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
 ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
 osalvador@...e.de, yunjeong.mun@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted
 interleave

On 10.04.25 15:25, Honggyu Kim wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On 4/9/2025 8:52 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 09.04.25 13:39, Honggyu Kim wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On 4/9/2025 6:05 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 08.04.25 09:32, Rakie Kim wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunjeong Mun <yunjeong.mun@...com>
>>>>
>>>> Why are the other SOF in there? Are there Co-developed-by missing?
>>>
>>> I initially found the problem and fixed it with my internal implementation but
>>> Rakie also had his idea so he started working on it.  His initial implementation
>>> has almost been similar to mine.
>>>
>>> I thought Signed-off-by is a way to express the patch series contains our
>>> contribution, but if you think it's unusual, then I can add this.
>>
>> Please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> 
>> and note that these are not "patch delivery" SOB.
>>
>> "
>> The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
>> development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path.
> 
> Yunjeong and I have been involved in finding the problem and also concluded this
> issue is related to hotplug together with our initial implementations before
> this patch.  So I guess it is the former case.

IIRC, usually we use Co-developed-by + SOB only if there are actual code 
contributions: when you would consider someone a "co-author".

"Co-developed-by: denotes authorship"

For suggestions we use Suggested-by, and for things that popped up 
during a review, it's usually a good idea that reviewers supply a 
Reviewed-by at the end.


So I guess Co-developed-by + SOB is appropriate if people consider 
themselves co-authors, in addition  to the main author.

> 
>> "
>>
>> and
>>
>> "
>> Co-developed-by: states that the patch was co-created by multiple developers;
>> it is used to give attribution to co-authors (in addition to the author
>> attributed by the From: tag) when several people work on a single patch.  Since
>> Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be immediately
>> followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author.  Standard sign-off
> 
> So the Co-developed-by comes before Signed-off-by.

Yes.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb