Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:35:17PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 20:42 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 20:25 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@xxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > So, that's not a valid SOB sequence either, the person sending me a 
> > > > patch should be the last person in the SOB chain 
> > > 
> > > Which is why I had it like that in the original version.
> > 
> > The problem with that order was that the first person should be the 
> > primary author and in the 'From' tag.
> > 
> > A SOB chain is intended to depict the true propagation/route of a 
> > patch, from author, through maintainers who handle and forward it, to 
> > the maintainer who applies it to a Git tree. The patch starts up with 
> > a single SOB (the primary author's) and every 'hop' after that adds a 
> > SOB to the tail of the existing SOB chain.
> 
> Multiple "Signed-off-by:"s are also used when there are
> multiple authors of a single patch.

Abused; which is exactly what we're saying is not correct.

While doing so we've also found people abusing SoB where Reviewed-by was
meant and other 'creative' use.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/