Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add a notifier chain for unknown (vendor) CPER records

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:34:23PM +0000, Shiju Jose wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: 22 July 2020 12:02
> >To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >bp@xxxxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >zhangliguang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab)
> ><wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>; jroedel@xxxxxxx; Linuxarm
> ><linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>; yangyicong <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan
> >Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; tanxiaofei
> ><tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add a notifier chain for unknown
> >(vendor) CPER records
> >
> >On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:39:51AM +0100, Shiju Jose wrote:
> >> CPER records describing a firmware-first error are identified by GUID.
> >> The ghes driver currently logs, but ignores any unknown CPER records.
> >> This prevents describing errors that can't be represented by a
> >> standard entry, that would otherwise allow a driver to recover from an
> >error.
> >> The UEFI spec calls these 'Non-standard Section Body' (N.2.3 of
> >> version 2.8).
> >>
> >> Add a notifier chain for these non-standard/vendor-records. Callers
> >> must identify their type of records by GUID.
> >>
> >> Record data is copied to memory from the ghes_estatus_pool to allow us
> >> to keep it until after the notifier has run.
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
> >
> >Co-developed-by: is going _in conjunction with_ SoB tag which is missing
> >here.
> This tag was added as per instruction from Rafael.
> I was told that I cannot add SoB tag for others unless specifically given.
> Probably I will leave it with Rafael/James to help on this SoB tag
> as Rafael was ok to merge this patch.

I think it's a misunderstanding somewhere. According to [1]:
"Since Co-developed-by: denotes authorship, every Co-developed-by: must be
immediately followed by a Signed-off-by: of the associated co-author."

It means either both or none.

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko