On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 06:12:36AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Ok. Will address those at the hole series, sending you later today
> a new version. Except for those, are patches 2-5 ok?
Haven't looked at them yet.
> Usually, I don't use "this patch". In this specific case, I wanted
> to bold the new fields that were added to the ARM trace event, making
> clear that before the changeset, none of such fields exist; they were
> added on such change. On other words, the keyword here is not patch,
> but instead "After". Maybe I can replace it with "now", e. g.:
Yes, and you can see what you're doing in the patch itself.
> Anyway, it sounds that the custody chan can better be written as:
>
> Co-authored-by: Jason Tian <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Co-authored-by: Signed-off-by: Shengwei Luo <luoshengwei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Co-authored-by: Daniel Ferguson <danielf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Tian <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Shengwei Luo <luoshengwei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Ferguson <danielf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The tag's name is Co-developed-by: and yes, I think it makes more sense here.
Note:
"Since Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be
immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author.
Standard sign-off procedure applies, i.e. the ordering of Signed-off-by: tags
should reflect the chronological history of the patch insofar as possible,
regardless of whether the author is attributed via From: or Co-developed-by:.
Notably, the last Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer
submitting the patch."
It is all documented:
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
