Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path

From	Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path
Date	2017-05-12 23:00 +0200
Message-ID	<tGpPj-1Im-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tGmeJ-7Jn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGmeJ-7Jn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGmy5-7Uc-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGmy5-7Uc-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <tGpFD-1DN-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/12/2017 2:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:29:05AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 11:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:01:37AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Austin Christ <austinwc@codeaurora.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
>>>
>>> So per that Chain Austin wrote the patch, who handed it to Dietmar, who
>>> handed it to you. Except I don't see a From: Austin on.
>>>
>>> What gives?
>>>
>>
>> Austin and I did the investigations and wrote the initial version.  We
>> discussed it with Dietmar, who suggested some significant rewrites which we
>> felt added to the readability of the code.  The current version posted on
>> the list you've seen was basically written by all three of us, so I listed
>> the authors in alphabetical order to properly give credit to all involved.
>>
>> Is there a better way to handle patches which have authorship from multiple
>> people?
> 
> Well, Signed-off-by is only a chain of custody thing. It says who
> handled the patches and that they have the right to publish and that
> sorts of thing. We have a document describing this.
> 
> It does _NOT_ however imply any kind of authorship what so ever. Of
> course, the author must be the first in the custody chain, how else
> could the patch 'escape'.
> 
> Authorship comes from the Author: header, and there's only 1 of those.
> 
> Just mention the people by name in the Changelog or something.
> 

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that assessment, but I'll discuss it 
with the folks offline and see what we want to roll into the next patch 
version after seeing what the other comments are.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Thread

[RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-05-12 19:10 +0200
  Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-05-12 19:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-12 22:50 +0200
      Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-05-12 23:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-12 19:30 +0200
  Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-12 22:50 +0200
    Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-05-12 23:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> - 2017-05-15 17:00 +0200
        Re: [RFC 1/2] sched/fair: Fix load_balance() affinity redo path Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-05-18 16:40 +0200

csiph-web