> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:06:19PM +0200, Elena Reshetova wrote: > > refcount_t type and corresponding API should be > > used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as > > a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental > > refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free > > situations. > > > > Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx> > > That SOB chain tells me that you wrote the patch and Hans, Kees and > David handled it in some way and the last one - David - is sending it to > me. It doesn't look like that though. > > So what are you trying to express with it? Whole refcount conversion was a long piece of work and the above people contributed to this code either as writes or reviewers or both. I am primary writer of the code and I am handing patches in our tree and sending them out, so how exactly the above should look like? Please note that we have about 300 patches and if I have to modify each sign-off to reflect who contributed to each commit in what particular way, I will go insane. Best Regards, Elena.
