netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for ops.force_speed

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:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 18:16:59 +0100
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@...switch.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        John W Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for
 ops.force_speed_duplex existence

Dear Jakub, dear Greg,


Am 03.11.20 um 19:39 schrieb Jakub Kicinski:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:35:09 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote:
>> According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my
>> understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c)
>> are connected by an *or*.
>>
>>>          (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
>>>              of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
>>>              license and I have the right under that license to submit that
>>>              work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
>>>              by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
>>>              permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
>>>              in the file; or
> 
> Ack, but then you need to put yourself as the author, because it's
> you certifying that the code falls under (b).
> 
> At least that's my understanding.

Greg, can you please clarify, if it’s fine, if I upstream a patch 
authored by somebody else and distributed under the GPLv2? I put them as 
the author and signed it off.

(In this case the change, adding an if condition, is also trivial.)


Kind regards,

Paul