On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 08:05:00AM -0800, Mychaela Falconia wrote: > Greg K-H wrote: > > > To ignore the public, accepted, standard is to become an operating > > system that does not follow the standard, which would not be a good > > thing at all. > > So is FreeBSD 13.x a bad OS then, because it offers an *option* of > suppressing this particular standard-mandated behaviour? I never said that, please do not be disengenous, that will only get you added to people's email filters to be ignored. > > Again, that is the standard, why wouldn't you want to do that? To not > > do that would be to break interoperability with millions of devices out > > there (remember modems?) > > I don't need to "remember" modems, I use them almost every day in my > test lab - but none of my proposed patch versions (nor FreeBSD's recent > CNO_RTSDTR feature addition) break interoperability with anything, > instead both FreeBSD's solution (for their OS) and my proposed Linux > patches merely provide an *option* for more specialized hw devices > that require different handling. That's fine, but again, you were ranting against the existing standard as if that was the thing that is wrong and broken here. Not your one-off hardware implementation that does not follow the existing standard. Please read the context you cut out. > > > The solution implemented in FreeBSD relies on a feature of that OS > > > which does not exist in Linux: initial-state devices. > > > > Linux dropped those a long time ago for good reasons, let's not revisit > > that design decision again please. > > Dropped? Are you saying that Linux once had them at some point in the > past? Yes we had much the same thing, but they might have worked a bit differently. Check the 2.2 kernel days or earlier. > > From what I recall with the original patch series, Johan is the author > > of these, not you. Rebasing and forwarding on is great, but please > > never drop original authorship of patches, that's just rude, and in > > some cases, ripe for legal worries. > > In the case of the 3 patches which originate from Johan (1/6, 2/6 and > 4/6), I submitted them with the following attribution: > > From: me > [...] > Co-developed-by: Johan > Signed-off-by: Johan > Signed-off-by: me > > My reading of Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst told me > this was the correct protocol - but if I got it wrong, what is the > correct way then? Specifically, what is the correct protocol when > (in this chronological order): "From:" would be from Johan as he wrote the commit. thanks, greg k-h
