Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization

[Luca Abeni]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:11:30 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
> > I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
> > other patches, or are you going to apply it separately?  
> 
> Posting them in a series is fine; it is customary to put independent
> things first such that they will not get stuck after the larger changes.
> 
> > In the first case, what is the correct authorship / SOB chain (I ask
> > because I keep getting this wrong every time :)  
> 
> Yes, this is a 'fun' case :-) I'd just merge the change into your patch
> introducing it and forget I 'contributed' the name change.

I think this patch is independent from the other patches I have in my
tree... So, I will go for the solution you describe below.


			Thanks,
				Luca

> 
> For larger patches you could do something like (in your email body):
> 
> 
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Changelog goes here...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Luca...
> ---
> 
> $PATCH
> 
> 
> Which says this patch is from me, carried by you, and then I'll stick
> another SoB on to indicated I took it back. Its a bit weird, but we've
> done it before.