netdev - Re: [PATCH next 07/11] ice: Introduce ETH56G PHY model for E825C products

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]

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:08:18 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, "Sergey
 Temerkhanov" <sergey.temerkhanov@...el.com>, Michal Michalik
	<michal.michalik@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>, Karol Kolacinski
	<karol.kolacinski@...el.com>, Pucha Himasekhar Reddy
	<himasekharx.reddy.pucha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 07/11] ice: Introduce ETH56G PHY model for E825C
 products



On 6/4/2024 2:28 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 12:47:42PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On 6/1/2024 3:35 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>
>>> This isn't a proper review, but I noticed that your signed-off
>>> appears twice above.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does. I developed some of the original code which Sergey used
>> here (hence my Co-developed-by and Signed-off-by). But I am also
>> covering for Tony and submitting the patch so I added my sign-off-by to
>> the end of the sequence since I'm the one who submitted the full series
>> to netdev.
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure how to handle this, since its a bit awkward. I
>> guess there are a couple of other ways we could have done this, from
>> dropping my co-developed-by tag, to moving it to the end..
> 
> Thanks Jacob,
> 
> I understand the problem you face.
> 
> Perhaps you could move yourself to the bottom of the list of Co-developers,
> below Tested-by.  But perhaps that is worse.
> 
> No big deal on my side if you stick with what you have,
> although possibly it will be flagged again (by someone else).

Yea, I'll try to keep this in mind in the future. I kinda had forgotten
that my Co-developed-by tag was here as-is when sending, because these
patches have been going through internal development for some time, and
responsibility and ownership has moved around a little. We also had a
lot of squashing and combining internal patches in order to generate a
suitable set for the list, vs sending a bunch of intermittent code.

Its definitely a bit confusing from outside perspective though, thats
for sure.