On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 9:40 PM Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 07:01:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 6:54 PM Ilpo Järvinen > > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:55 PM Ilpo Järvinen > > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > But more importantly I do not see the reason for the Acked-by tag when > > > > SoB of the same person is present. > > > > > > I just repeated what Uwe gave me. Maybe he didn't notice he was already > > > there as SoB. > > > > > > This situation is anyway a bit more complex than usual. The line I took > > > was part of Uwe's much larger patch initially (which was fully reverted) > > > so his SoB was carried over to preserve the authorship. As I made a > > > non-trivial modification to his original patch by removing almost all of > > > it, I added my SoB too. Given this situation, I kind of thought he Acked > > > (approved) the post-modification version of it. > > > > I believe you haven't preserved the authorship that way (since From > > line is different), but since you have done non-trivial changes and > > Uwe is okay with them, the straightforward tag chain would be (with > > your authorship implied): > > Co-developed-by: Uwe > > SoB: Uwe > > SoB: yours > > I don't care much, but IMHO the initial set of tags made sense to me. > It > has my S-o-b because the change is (somewhat) taken from me and it has > my ack because the modification looked good to me. According to https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by the SoB already implies that you developed that, but Ack if not. It also clarifies Co-developed-by for cases like this. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
