linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 0/6] Patches for v6.17

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <A85925F6-3F1D-4D7A-9345-7E20512ADB21@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 04:27:04 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
 Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 paulmck@...nel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/6] Patches for v6.17



> On Jul 21, 2025, at 12:29 AM, Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 10:01 AM Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> There seems to be a couple of issues in the S-O-B chains of commits listed
>> below (in rcu/next):
>> 
>> * dcf1668449c9 ("rcu: Document GP init vs hotplug-scan ordering requirements")
>> * bb1c373934db ("rcu: Document concurrent quiescent state reporting for offline CPUs")
>> 
>> They have a "Co-developed-by:" tag without a corresponding "Signed-off-by:"
>> tag [1].
>> 
>> Or, if the contribution is too minor to have a "Signed-off-by:",
>> then a "Suggested-by:" tag with a "Link:" to the relevant message should
>> suffice.
>> 
>> I have no idea which approach suits better in each commit above.
>> 
>> [1]: Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>>     section "When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:"
>> 
> 
> Thanks for reviewing this! I will fix the tags.
> 
> 
>> Quoting relevant paragraph:
>> 
>>  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
>>  procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags should reflect the
>>  chronological history of the patch insofar as possible, regardless of whether
>>  the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:.  Notably, the last
>>  Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch.
>> 
>> Side note:
>>  scripts/checkpatch.pl would have complained about those missing
>>  Signed-off-by: tags.
>> 
>>> 
>>> .../Data-Structures/Data-Structures.rst       |  32 +++++
>>> .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst  | 128 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 
>> I'm seeing sub-optimal uses of reST markups in Requirements.rst from kernel
>> documentation stand point.
>> 
>> I'm going to submit a patch or two to improve them, but I can't promise when.
>> They will likely be only cosmetic cleanups and I'm OK with it upstreamed as
>> it is.
>> 
> 
> Thanks!

Thanks, I appreciate that!

- Joel

> 
> 
> - Neeraj