Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] serial: 8250: Store to lsr_save_flags after lsr read

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 9:40 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 07:01:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 6:54 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:55 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > But more importantly I do not see the reason for the Acked-by tag when
> > > > SoB of the same person is present.
> > >
> > > I just repeated what Uwe gave me. Maybe he didn't notice he was already
> > > there as SoB.
> > >
> > > This situation is anyway a bit more complex than usual. The line I took
> > > was part of Uwe's much larger patch initially (which was fully reverted)
> > > so his SoB was carried over to preserve the authorship. As I made a
> > > non-trivial modification to his original patch by removing almost all of
> > > it, I added my SoB too. Given this situation, I kind of thought he Acked
> > > (approved) the post-modification version of it.
> >
> > I believe you haven't preserved the authorship that way (since From
> > line is different), but since you have done non-trivial changes and
> > Uwe is okay with them, the straightforward tag chain would be (with
> > your authorship implied):
> > Co-developed-by: Uwe
> > SoB: Uwe
> > SoB: yours
>
> I don't care much, but IMHO the initial set of tags made sense to me.

> It
> has my S-o-b because the change is (somewhat) taken from me and it has
> my ack because the modification looked good to me.

According to
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
the SoB already implies that you developed that, but Ack if not. It
also clarifies Co-developed-by for cases like this.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko