Re: [tip: timers/clocksource] clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct: Don't register as a sched_clock on arm64
From: Daniel Lezcano
Date: Fri Jul 25 2025 - 09:15:59 EST
On 25/07/2025 12:34, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ ... ]
3)
There's also a stray Tested-by tag by one of the SOB entries:
Signed-off-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
When someone passes along a patch, it's implicit that they not only
have reviewed the patch, but have also tested it to a certain extent
In this specific case where the original commit is from AOSP, this chain
seems to make sense. Souns like:
"I was in the original commit delivery path"
"I reviewed this patch carried to Linux"
"I tested it on Linux"
Yeah, so then this should be documented by adding a comment to the tag
itself:
Signed-off-by: Donghoon Yu <hoony.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx> # AOSP -> Linux port
Reviewed-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx> # AOSP -> Linux port
Otherwise it's just confusing as to why there's duplicate SOB and
Reviewed-by entries.
Yes, I agree it is more clear.
But as long as the porting was basically just a cherry-pick, these
extra tags are probably superfluous. If there was a conflict resolved
by one of the maintainers along the SOB chain, that should be marked
explicitly, which I see was already done in some cases:
[ dlezcano : Fixed conflict with 20250614175556.922159-2-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx ]
Ok, noted for the next time.
4)
Why is the 'Link' tag just in the middle of the SOB chain, instead at the end of it?
I don't know. Link must be at the end It is stated somewhere in the
documentation?
I use git b4 -s <msg-id> and the tool adds the Link then my sign off.
Yeah, so using tools and not looking at the end result will often just
create a random tag order that looks messy.
On preferred tag ordering, see:
Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst
Ordering of commit tags
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
'Link' is at the end of the list of tags.
There's some logic to the -tip tag ordering (more important tags go
before less important tags), but it's mostly just an arbitrary order
that we try to stick to within -tip.
Thanks for the pointer !
Presumably this is the proper SOB chain:
Author: Donghoon Yu <hoony.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Donghoon Yu <hoony.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250620181719.1399856-3-willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx
Correct?
So I got no answer for this question, but I suppose my assumption is
correct - so I've rebased the tip:timers/clocksource commits to fix the
misattribution and a number of other problems, and also fixed various
typos, spelling mistakes and inconsistencies in the changelogs while at
it. Let me know if I got something wrong.
If the rebase is possible, I suggest to take the opportunity to remove
the following patches:
commit 5d86e479193b - clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct: Add module support
commit 7e477e9c4eb4 - clocksource/drivers/exynos_mct: Fix section
mismatch from the module conversion
Because of:
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250725090349.87730-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/bccb77b9-7cdc-4965-aa05-05836466f81f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I've attached a delta-patch of the changelog changes below - note that
I skipped the commit IDs to make the diff easier to read.
I have one question regarding the 'handler', when there is a message like:
[ handler: I did some changes ]
...
Signed-off-by: John Doe <handler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Does the 'handler' have to match the email name ?
For example below, there is:
[ dlezcano : Fixed conflict with
20250614175556.922159-2-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx ]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
Is this form ok, or should it be:
[ daniel.lezcano: Fixed conflict with
20250614175556.922159-2-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx ]
?
===================>
--- 2025-07-25 12:15:26.024284067 +0200
+++ 2025-07-25 12:15:18.761435799 +0200
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ Date: Tue Jul 15 14:18:33 2025 +0200
the module loading.
Fix this by adding the __init_or_module annotation for the functions:
+
If my understanding of the documentation is correct, it seems to me the
delta is ok. Until now, I was relying on the tool to put the different
tags in the correct order, I thought it was in the arrival order.
Thanks for fixing this. Is there an existing script checking the tags
order is correct regarding the tip criteria ?
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog