* Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 01:38 -0800, tip-bot for Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Commit-ID: fbdc4b9a6c29befbcca65e5366e5aaf2abb7a013 > > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/fbdc4b9a6c29befbcca65e5366e5aaf2abb7a013 > > Author: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > AuthorDate: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:36:55 +0100 > > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > > CommitDate: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:16:49 +0100 > > > > lockdep, rtmutex, bug: Show taint flags on error > > > > Show the taint flags in all lockdep and rtmutex-debug error messages. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1319773015.6759.30.camel@deadeye > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > [...] > > If you disagree with a patch, do not silently drop parts of > it. I demand that you remove my 'Signed-off-by' as this is > not the change I submitted. FYI, there's no "I will only sign off on a patch doing two things if it's applied in full" kind of condition in the SOB definition, allowing that would break the GPL: people have the right to take your modifications to the GPL-ed kernel and modify it further. Your original patch did two things. Peter did the sensible thing: he split out the print_kernel_ident() changes from your patch which stand on their own and kept your authorship in place - that is what the above patch does. Once you send it out the SOB is valid and people can (and typically will) modify it - and if you are still the main author (which you are here 100%) then keeping you as the author is the proper approach - Peter added his own SOB after yours. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|