netdev - Re: pull-request: mac80211 2019-10-08

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]

Message-ID: <20191009101836.46bcf268@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:18:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: mac80211 2019-10-08

On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 08:36:57 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> > Pulled into net. Let me know if did it wrong :)  
> 
> Oops, didn't know it was your "turn" again, guess I haven't been reading
> netdev enough.

It's more of a ad hoc whenever Dave needs to step away for a day 
or two thing, than a schedule. Also I'm quite happy to pick things 
up from patchwork and the mailing list, so no real need to CC me,
anyway :)

> Looks good, but I didn't think this could possibly go wrong :)
> 
> > FWIW there was this little complaint from checkpatch:  
> [...]
> > WARNING: Duplicate signature
> > #14: 
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>  
> 
> Hmm, yeah, so ... I was actually not sure about that and I guess it
> slipped by. Most of the time, I've been editing it out, but what happens
> is this:
> 
>  1) I send a patch to our internal tree, to fix up some things. Unless
>     it's really urgent, I don't necessarily post it externally at the
>     same time. This obviously has my S-o-b.
>  2) Luca goes through our internal tree and sends out the patches to the
>     list, adding his S-o-b.
>  3) For the patches to the stack, I apply them, and git-am adds my S-o-b
>     again because it's not the last.
> 
> So now we have
> 
> S-o-b: Johannes
> S-o-b: Luca
> S-o-b: Johannes
> 
> If I edit it just to be "S-o-b: Johannes", then it looks strange because
> I've applied a patch from the list and dropped an S-o-b. It's still my
> code, and Luca doesn't normally have to make any changes to it, but ...
> This is what I've normally been doing I think, but it always felt a bit
> weird because then it's not the patch I actually applied, it's like I
> pretend the whole process described above never happened.
> 
> If I edit and remove my first S-o-b then it's weird because the Author
> isn't the first S-o-b, making it look like I didn't sign it off when I
> authored it?
> 
> If I edit and remove the last S-o-b, how did it end up in my tree?
> 
> So basically my first S-o-b is certifying (a) or maybe occasionally (b)
> under the DCO, while Luca's and my second are certifying (c) (and maybe
> occasionally also (a) or (b) if any changes were made.)
> 
> 
> Is there any convention on this that I could adhere to? :)

Thanks for the explanation, seems like a reasonable stand so as long as
you're aware this is happening, I'm happy :)