On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:50:45PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 06:48:28PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:03:59PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > > Fixes: 0d485ada404b ("xfs: use generic percpu counters for free block counter")
> >
> > I really don't like this sort of "annotation". It wrongly implies
> > the commit was broken (it wasn't) and there's no scope for stating
> > the problem context. i.e. that the problem is a minor regression in
> > a rarely travelled corner case that is unlikely to affect production
> > machines in any significant way. It's better to describe things with
> > all the relevant context:
> >
> > "This is a regression introduced in commit ... and only occurs when
> > .... "
>
> Makes sense, will do so.
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Not @redhat?
>
> I thought that I'm employed by Red Hat as a QE not a filesystem
> developer, all filesystem patches I send reflect my own opinions not my
> employer's, so all silly mistakes I made in the patches are under my
> personal email too :)
Copyright assignments rarely work like that. It's a big grey area,
though, so I think you should check with your legal department as to
what you should use here.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
