netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: sfp: assume that LOS is not implemented if both LOS normal and inverted is set

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]

Date:   Wed, 30 Dec 2020 18:17:41 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: sfp: assume that LOS is not implemented if both
 LOS normal and inverted is set

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 05:06:23PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 05:57:58PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 December 2020 16:13:10 Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 04:47:54PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Some GPON SFP modules (e.g. Ubiquiti U-Fiber Instant) have set both
> > > > SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_INVERTED and SFP_OPTIONS_LOS_NORMAL bits in their EEPROM.
> > > > 
> > > > Such combination of bits is meaningless so assume that LOS signal is not
> > > > implemented.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch fixes link carrier for GPON SFP module Ubiquiti U-Fiber Instant.
> > > > 
> > > > Co-developed-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > > 
> > > No, this is not co-developed. The patch content is exactly what _I_
> > > sent you, only the commit description is your own.
> > 
> > Sorry, in this case I misunderstood usage of this Co-developed-by tag.
> > I will remove it in next iteration of patches.
> 
> You need to mark me as the author of the code at the very least...

Hi Pali

You also need to keep your own Signed-off-by, since the patch is
coming through you.

So basically, git commit --am --author="Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>"
and then two Signed-off-by: lines.

   Andrew