Re: [PATCH v4] x86, olpc: add debugfs interface for EC commands

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Mar 26 2012 - 19:14:10 EST

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Originally-from: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > v4: really fix sign-off tags
> s/fix/break/? "Originally-from" is not a recognised tag. If this code
> is based upon an earlier version from Paul then Signed-off-by: is
> correct.

No, the original ordering was *not* correct:

From: Daniel Drake <dsd@xxxxxxxxxx>


Signed-off-by: Daniel Drake <dsd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxx>

In the previous discussion we had I explained what the rules for
signoffs are. Let me quote Linus as well:

" The sign-off chain should be very simple: the first person
to sign off should be the author, and the last person to
sign off should be the committer. "

This is not true for this patch, because the first signoff does
not match the 'From:' line (author).

Nor is the last signoff the committer - i.e. the person sending
me this patch to apply. Every maintainer along the route adds a
signoff to the tail if it's propagated via email, or does a
merge commit if it's a pull.

If Daniel sends me a patch he should be the last signoff. If he
authored the patch then he should also be the first (and, by
implication, only) signoff. Signed-off-by does not recognize
multiple authorship - that has to be written into the changelog,
added via another type of tag - either approach is fine to me.

What I cannot do is to apply patches that have visibly broken
signoff chains.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at