Em Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:16:56AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:51:51AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > That being said, from a "are you keeping the correct authorship info", > > yes, it sounds like you are doing the correct thing here. > > Look at what I do for stable kernels, I take the original commit and add > > it to "another tree" keeping the original author and s-o-b chain intact, > > and adding a "this is the original git commit id" type message to the > > changelog text so that people can link it back to the original. > I think you're describing 'git cherry-pick -x'. > The question was about taking pieces of the original commit. Not the whole commit. > Author field obviously stays, but SOB is questionable. > If author meant to change X and Y and Z. Silently taking only Z chunk of the diff > doesn't quite seem right. > If we document that such commit split happens in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst > do you think it will be enough to properly inform developers? Can't we instead establish the rule that for something to be added to tools/include/ it should first land in a separate commit in include/, ditto for the other things tools/ copies from the kernel sources. That was the initial intention of tools/include/ and also that is how tools/perf/check-headers.h works, warning when something ot out of sync, etc. I.e. the tools/ maintainers should refuse patches that touch both tools/include and tools/. wdyt? - Arnaldo
