Re: [PATCH] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class() with unique class keys

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2023/02/09 9:46, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 4:23 PM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Did I misuse the Co-developed-by: tag? I added your Signed-off-by: tag because
>> https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
>> states that "every Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a Signed-off-by:
>> of the associated co-author."
> 
> That doesn't mean that *You* can add a Signed-off-by:
> 
> Nobody can certify sign-off for anybody else. Read the sign-off rules:
> you can add your *own* sign-off if the rules hold, but you can't sign
> off for somebody else.
> 
> The "Co-developed-by: must be immediately followed by a
> Signed-off-by:" thing only means that if there are multiple
> developers, then ALL DEVELOPERS MUST SIGN OFF.
> 
> It absolutely does *NOT* mean that you adding a Co-developed-by means
> that you then add a Signed-off-by.
> 
> That's like faking somebody else's signature on some paperwork. Never
> do that either, and it's hopefully obvious why.

OK. Then, how to handle a case where a developer suggested a diff but
he/she does not propose that diff as a formal patch?

Hillf is suggesting diffs for many bugs (an example is
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=ee93abc9a483645fc0914811af9c12da355a2e3e ),
and some of diffs look reasonable/correct, but Hillf never tries to propose as
a formal patch, and that diff is left forgotten and that bug remains unfixed.

I don't want to steal Hillf's effort. But given that I can't add Co-developed-by:
and Signed-off-by: on behalf of Hillf, how can I propose a formal patch in a way
that preserves Hillf's effort? Is Suggested-by: suitable for this case?